Skip to content
K = 0.731

Mollick Says Study Finds Opus 4.8 Outperforms Human Expert Peer Reviewers

1 reports 1 reporting sources 3 hours agoNew

Understand the event

AI overview

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.

Generated by AI from reports · Updated 2 hours ago

Latest development10/23 12:10 (UTC+8)
Mollick reports Opus 4.8 outperforms human peer reviewers across 124 Harvard papersEthan Mollick · X

Read next

More changes in today’s briefingOlmoEarth v1.3 releases global satellite embeddings and a browser-based mapping explorer

Report timeline

Follow the reports to explore different sides of the event.

10/23
  1. Ethan Mollick · X
    Mollick reports Opus 4.8 outperforms human peer reviewers across 124 Harvard papers

    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.

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

Event heat trend

There is not enough continuous observation data to plot a trend yet.