AI could change which parts of science impede progress. Consider a world in which machine systems are better, faster, and cheaper than people at most scientific work that can be done through a computer. Our question is what would limit science in that world. Literature synthesis, hypothesis generation, software development, simulation, and analysis could become abundant, while experiments, observations, well-supported conclusions, and accountable institutional au- thority remain scarce. Science would then be constrained by a different set of resources. In this paper, we call this change the scarcity inversion and consider four parts of it: selection, physical access, validation, and organizational choice. This change is arriving first in mathematics and coding/software/algorithm design, where the whole scientific loop can run inside computation. For national laboratories, the change could be striking. Their distinctive role is to turn abundant machine reasoning into trustworthy results by combining controlled experiments, protected data, expert judgment, and accountable authority. The practical question is how facilities, verification, provenance, resource allocation, and scientific governance should change when reasoning is plentiful and trustworthy evidence is scarce.

翻译：暂无翻译