Skip to main content

My Year with ChatGPT (2025): Quantifying the Growth of an AI-Literate Scientist

In 2025, my interaction with artificial intelligence transitioned from occasional consultation to sustained intellectual collaboration. This post documents that trajectory using structured metrics, annotated summaries, and reflective analysis, treating AI usage as a measurable component of scientific skill development rather than a casual productivity aid.

1. Temporal Scope and Engagement Intensity

Metric Scientifically Interpretable Value Annotation
Calendar window January–December 2025 Continuous annual engagement, not episodic usage
Total active days Multi-month distributed activity Indicates integration into routine research workflow
Session depth High (20–30+ conversational turns/session) Reflects iterative hypothesis refinement rather than query–response use
Cumulative active time Equivalent to several full working weeks Comparable to time invested in a structured training module

Interpretation: Engagement patterns resemble supervised intellectual training rather than tool usage.

2. Thematic Distribution of Scientific Engagement

Domain Relative Intensity Representative Activities
Molecular & Cancer Biology ███████████ Biomarkers, miRNA biology, translational hypotheses
Bioinformatics & Data Analysis █████████ R/Python logic, statistics, reproducible workflows
Scientific Writing ████████ Manuscripts, SOPs, grant justifications
Pedagogy & Outreach ██████ Structured explanations, educational content design

Annotation: The breadth of domains reflects cross-disciplinary cognitive integration, a hallmark of advanced scientific training.

3. Before vs After: Cognitive Mode Transition

Dimension Early 2025 Late 2025
Nature of questions Task-specific System-level, integrative
Use of outputs End-points Intermediate reasoning blocks
Scientific framing Implicit Explicit, hypothesis-driven
Role of AI Reference tool Cognitive scaffold

Interpretation: The transition mirrors the shift from undergraduate problem-solving to doctoral-level conceptual synthesis.

4. Depth of Interaction: A Conceptual Graph

Session Depth
│
│                         ████████████
│                     ████████████
│                 ████████████
│            ███████████
│       █████████
│  ███████
│
└──────────────────────────────────────
     Early 2025           Late 2025

Figure annotation: Progressive increase in conversational depth reflects growing precision in questioning, constraint setting, and model interrogation—core elements of AI-literacy.

5. AI-Literacy as a Scientific Skill

Competency Operational Meaning
Prompt structuring Formulating biologically constrained, logically ordered queries
Critical validation Independent verification against domain knowledge
Workflow integration Embedding AI outputs into real analytical pipelines
Epistemic control Maintaining authorship and interpretive authority

6. Reflective Synthesis

The significance of 2025 lies not in usage volume, but in transformation. Over the course of the year, I learned to treat AI as an intellectual partner bounded by scientific rigor. This shift has reshaped how I design experiments, interpret data, and communicate science.

Rather than accelerating shortcuts, this process strengthened fundamentals: clarity of thought, methodological discipline, and integrative reasoning. In that sense, my year with ChatGPT represents a measurable step in my evolution toward a more dexterous, systems-oriented scientist.

Keywords: AI-literacy, scientific cognition, research workflow, translational biology, augmented intelligence

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

KRAS-Driven Oncogenic Signalling in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Molecular Mechanisms, Regulatory Pathways, and Therapeutic Frontiers

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a characteristically aggressive tumour resistant to chemotherapy, and at the centre of this malignant phenotype lies an almost universal dependency on activating mutations in the KRAS oncogene. More than 90 %of PDAC tumours present with alterations in the  KRAS oncogene, most frequently at codon 12, and these mutations represent the primary cause of the tumour’s signalling complexity, metabolic heterogeneity and stromal orchestration. The predominance of KRAS in PDAC reflects the capacity of mutant KRAS to adversely affect cellular processes in the tumour microenvironment that sustain the tumour’s growth, plasticity, survival and resistance to therapy. The biochemical behaviour of KRAS is rooted in its role as a molecular switch cycling between inactive GDP-bound and active GTP-bound conformations. In physiologically normal cells, this transition is carefully modulated by guanine nucleotide exchange factors and GTPase-activat...
Post a Comment
Read more

From Script Usage to Computational Reasoning: My Progression in Python, R, and Bioinformatics

This article is a reflective and technical account of how my understanding and practical usage of Python , R , RStudio , and bioinformatics workflows has evolved over time. It is written deliberately without hype. The goal is not to exaggerate proficiency, but to document growth, limitations, scale of data handled, and a statistically reasoned trajectory of where my computational capacity is realistically headed over the next three years. 1. Starting Point: Computational Literacy, Not Expertise My initial engagement with programming languages was not as a formally trained computer scientist, but as a biomedical researcher responding to data pressure. Early usage of R and Python was functional and problem-driven: plotting figures, running basic statistics, reshaping tables, and automating repetitive tasks. I did not begin with algorithmic depth; I began with necessity. At this stage, my interaction with code was characterized by: Script reuse with modification Heavy reli...
Post a Comment
Read more