Yale Psychologist Puts Claude Opus On Peer Review Duty, Catches Errors Human Reviewers Miss
lu_sichu · x · 2026-09-18
Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom says he's been having Claude Opus review published papers and his own unpublished manuscripts (no confidential uploads). The reviews are excellent: the model catches statistical errors, internal contradictions, and conceptual confusions human reviewers miss, offers useful suggestions, has good judgment on what's genuinely novel, and avoids human "myside bias" — no reject-the-paper-because-it-didn't-cite-me, no insults. Reposter lusichu goes further: most reviewers aren't real specialists anyway, and he won't read papers that haven't been stress-tested by top models. Try it on the classics — the newest models can improve even very good papers.
More from AGI Musings
- Top mathematician Daniel Litt clashes with "Mathematics is effectively dead" essay on AI's impact — littmath · 2026-09-18
- Extropic founder Beff Jezos: "Less dooming, more building" on AI — beffjezos · 2026-09-18
- Google Researcher: Doom Scenarios Make Sense Only With Gradual Disempowerment First — moultano · 2026-09-18
- 'Human-level math is solved'? Researchers push back: 99% of math is undiscovered — rand_longevity · 2026-09-18
- Grady Booch mocks AI self-regulation: like trusting Thanos to behave — Grady_Booch · 2026-09-18
- Geoffrey Litt: The Document Editor Is the Next IDE as Prompts Become Executable Software — ivanhzhao · 2026-09-18