6.1K views · 102 likes · 8 reposts (at collection)
Mollick reports Opus 4.8 outperforms human peer reviewers across 124 Harvard papers
- Who
- the study authors
- What
- found that Opus 4.8 outperformed human expert peer reviewers across 124 Harvard social science papers
What happened
Ethan Mollick says Opus 4.8 beats human experts by every measure as a peer reviewer in a study of 124 Harvard social science papers, spanning statistical analyses, formal models, and qualitative work. He argues that academics need to figure out how to adapt the practice of science to AI, fast.
Read next
See the full storyMollick Says Study Finds Opus 4.8 Outperforms Human Expert Peer ReviewersThe story so far
Ethan Mollick says a study of 124 Harvard social science papers found that Opus 4.8 outperformed human expert peer reviewers on every measure assessed. The papers covered statistical analyses, formal models, and qualitative work. Mollick argues that academics need to move quickly to adapt the practice of science to AI.
Keep up with AI, one email a day
Model releases, price changes and compute developments, with original sources. Free, confirmed by email, and easy to unsubscribe. Read a past issue · 2026-10-23