# Not Everything That Counts Can Be Counted: A Case for Safe Qualitative AI

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.09325 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.09325/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Nov 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10683/) (2019)
- [The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06292/) (2024)
- [Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00770/) (2023)
- [The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-Level Automated Scientific Discovery via Agentic Tree Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08066/) (2025)
- [Accelerating scientific discovery with Co-Scientist](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18864/) (2025)
- [RedditBias: A Real-World Resource for Bias Evaluation and Debiasing of Conversational Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.03521/) (2021)
- [Supporting Qualitative Analysis with Large Language Models: Combining Codebook with GPT-3 for Deductive Coding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.10548/) (2023)
- [Superintelligent Agents Pose Catastrophic Risks: Can Scientist AI Offer a Safer Path?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15657/) (2025)
- [Chatbots for Data Collection in Surveys: A Comparison of Four Theory-Based Interview Probes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08582/) (2025)
- [Harnessing ChatGPT for thematic analysis: Are we ready?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.14545/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLM) are reshaping science, with most recent advances culminating in fully-automated scientific discovery pipelines. But qualitative research has been left behind. Researchers in qualitative methods are hesitant about AI adoption. Yet when they are willing to use AI at all, they have little choice but to rely on general-purpose tools like ChatGPT to assist with interview interpretation, data annotation, and topic modeling - while simultaneously acknowledging these system's well-known limitations of being biased, opaque, irreproducible, and privacy-compromising. This creates a critical gap: while AI has substantially advanced quantitative methods, the qualitative dimensions essential for meaning-making and comprehensive scientific understanding remain poorly integrated. We argue for developing dedicated qualitative AI systems built from the ground up for interpretive research. Such systems must be transparent, reproducible, and privacy-friendly. We review recent literature to show how existing automated discovery pipelines could be enhanced by robust qualitative capabilities, and identify key opportunities where safe qualitative AI could advance multidisciplinary and mixed-methods research.