We Ran a Research Sprint With AI. The AI Worked. The Research Didn't

Abstract

Generative AI tools for research are widely deployed, yet individual productivity gains do not guarantee better team research. We argue that how AI use is structured matters alongside access. Personal AI tools may amplify two failures under deadline pressure: a consumption bottleneck, in which generation outpaces team-visible evaluation, and AI-induced research silos, in which private human-AI loops displace shared decision-making. We motivate this position with a mechanism-generating pilot: a 100-minute research sprint with twelve researchers in three independently operating teams, within a seventeen-person session. Both patterns recurred across teams and evidence sources. Of 33 logged AI interactions, one was accepted outright and 27 lacked a recorded disposition; missing records alone do not establish absent evaluation. A parallel autonomous pipeline produced a complete draft without in-session human evaluation, illustrating production capacity rather than comparative quality. We propose Human-AI-Human collaboration: an interaction topology in which AI connects researchers' contexts and supports inspectable collective evaluation and decision-making. The pilot does not isolate AI-specific effects from time pressure or workflow practices. We close with seven modular, falsifiable design hypotheses, prioritizing shared context and team-visible evaluation checkpoints for controlled follow-up.