Symbiosis vs. Parasitism: The Scientist's Choice

The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into scientific research has generated intense discussion about its benefits, risks, and responsible use. This essay offers a different perspective by examining human–AI collaboration through the personal experience of a researcher rather than through general theoretical arguments. It argues that the quality of collaboration depends not only on the capabilities of artificial intelligence but also on the scientist who guides the dialogue. Three aspects of this interaction are discussed: the emergence of an intellectual environment in which ideas are less likely to disappear, the gradual development of complementary roles between researcher and AI, and the paradoxical increase in cognitive effort that may result from the removal of routine technical barriers. The essay suggests that artificial intelligence creates unprecedented opportunities for scientific creativity while simultaneously increasing the temptation to delegate essential elements of scientific thinking. Whether this relationship develops into genuine symbiosis or cognitive parasitism ultimately depends on the choices made by each individual scientist rather than on artificial intelligence itself. This essay intentionally presents one researcher's personal experience together with the reflections that gradually emerged from it. Its purpose is not to propose a universal model of human–AI collaboration, but to contribute one carefully documented observation to a much broader conversation. If researchers from different disciplines begin to describe not only what artificial intelligence can do, but also how it changes their own thinking, scientific dialogue, decision-making, and research practice, these individual experiences may eventually provide the empirical basis for a more comprehensive understanding of human–AI collaboration.