AI is undoubtedly accelerating data scientists' work, but it is also quietly eroding how data science skills are built in the first place. As copilots, automated pipelines, and increasingly capable models take on more of the hands-on work, the role of the data scientist is shifting toward solution design and strategic problem-solving.

Although this may be a welcome evolution for those who have long earned their stripes in the field, it introduces a risk many organizations, as a whole, are underestimating—the loss of repetition and practice that makes this expertise stick.

By reducing first-hand experiences and the challenge of problem-solving, AI-driven automation risks weakening the foundational expertise required for true data science mastery and system-level thinking. According to research from Anthropic, developers who delegated tasks entirely to AI showed weaker learning outcomes even when productivity gains were modest.

For years, developing data science skills meant spending time close to the work. This entailed tasks such as cleaning up messy datasets, performing exploratory data analysis, manual feature engineering, interpreting model outputs, and diagnosing why a model is underperforming.

This kind of hands-on work may not always be efficient, but they are effective. Repeating steps, getting stuck, figuring out what went wrong, and iterating builds intuition and creates a deeper understanding. Repetitive, direct interaction with data, tools, and code transforms knowledge into proficiency, then mastery.

But there’s a tension emerging: the very aspects of AI that make practitioners more productive—automation, speed, and reduced manual effort—are also removing many of the repetitive, hands-on workflows that historically helped data scientists build technical depth and lasting expertise.

Warning signs

The impact on data scientists is immediate and somewhat invisible. When probable answers are just one prompt away, there's less incentive to internalize patterns or build the mental models that enable independent critical thinking and judgment.

Over time, practitioners can complete tasks with AI assistance but struggle to diagnose issues, adapt approaches to unfamiliar contexts, or evaluate whether an AI-generated output is actually correct. In a field where edge cases and ambiguity are the norm, that gap matters.

Without the necessary adaptations to recognize and maintain core expertise, organizations will start to see the warning signs appearing subtly in judgment, troubleshooting, and knowing when to question AI outputs.

How organizations shift their tech teams and data scientists towards thinking in systems as opposed to tasks while reinforcing those core technical competencies will make a difference in ensuring those warning signs won’t progress so far as being clear and obvious negative impacts on the organization.

Hands-on engagement reinforces understanding

This is where organizations need to be deliberate. Not every task needs to be fully automated. The goal isn’t necessarily to slow down AI adoption or force a return to purely manual workflows, but to ensure that as work becomes more efficient, learning doesn’t become incidental.

Here are three frameworks that can help leaders be more intentional about where and how skill practice happens, ensuring AI reinforces learning as well as efficiency:

At the organizational level, dedicate learning time to close the loop between assisted work, knowledge retention, and deliberate practice on fundamentals. If skill erosion is not visible in productivity metrics, then leaders should implement proficiency metrics and periodic assessments.

At the team level, peer and manager reviews are critical to create accountability for independent judgment. This entails reviewing not just outputs but also reasoning, and fostering an environment in which team members challenge each other to explain why things work.

1. At the organizational level, dedicate learning time to close the loop between assisted work, knowledge retention, and deliberate practice on fundamentals. If skill erosion is not visible in productivity metrics, then leaders should implement proficiency metrics and periodic assessments.

2. At the team level, peer and manager reviews are critical to create accountability for independent judgment. This entails reviewing not just outputs but also reasoning, and fostering an environment in which team members challenge each other to explain why things work.

3. At the individual level, the key principle is to preserve engagement with the problem and being deliberate about what parts of the work you stay close to and what you delegate to AI. In some cases, it’s valuable for practitioners to have a dedicated space to engage more directly with the underlying work, such as exploring data without automation or validating AI-generated outputs step by step. Anthropic's aforementioned research supports a specific version of this: Using AI to understand, not just produce.

Fostering these moments of deeper, hands-on engagement across organizations reinforces understanding and long-term capability in ways that passive consumption cannot.

Learning through action makes mastery possible

The AI era is redefining what it means to be a data scientist. As faster tools and more automated workflows unlock new possibilities, teams can focus on more complex problems. But expertise doesn’t emerge from speed alone. It is often best built through experience and a knowledge of fundamentals.

As organizations continue to embrace AI, the challenge is preserving the conditions that build real skills. The “old school” practices that once defined data science—hands-on work, repetition, and learning through friction—are the very mechanisms that enable mastery. Ensuring that work becomes easier without making technology expertise harder to achieve will be critical in the AI-driven future.

We've featured the best AI tool.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit