As AI increasingly becomes a collaborator in scientific research, its impact may extend beyond improving ideas to reshaping how they are evaluated, attributed, and perceived by humans. Yet existing research has largely examined these dimensions in isolation. We present a unified empirical study of Human-AI scientific ideation, investigating two complementary perspectives: i) how AI collaboration shapes scientific ideas and their evaluation, and ii) how firsthand collaboration reshapes human perceptions of AI. Through a shared experimental setting involving Human-AI and Human-Human research teams, human and LLM evaluators, collaboration-provenance analysis, and participant surveys, we uncover several counterintuitive findings. First, AI collaboration shows no significant advantage in human-evaluated idea quality, while iterative revision consistently improves quality. Second, AI judges can approximate human scores yet disagree on idea rankings; notably, an AI judge favors AI-assisted proposals without a corresponding advantage in human evaluations. Third, collaboration provenance remains only partially detectable, revealing substantial overlap between Human-AI and Human-Human scientific outputs. Finally, firsthand AI collaboration is associated with greater perceived usefulness but smaller efficiency gains than expected, suggesting a nuanced recalibration of human expectations. Overall, our findings challenge the notion that AI's value in scientific ideation lies primarily in producing better ideas, revealing instead its broader influence on scientific creation, evaluation, attribution, and human perceptions.

翻译：暂无翻译