Ethan Mollick: AI paper feedback now rivals a good peer reviewer
emollick · x · 2026-11-04
Ethan Mollick notes that while norms for AI in academic review are still in flux, it's worth testing yourself: ask GPT-6 Pro or Opus 5.5 High for substantive feedback on your paper. A few months ago you'd get nitpicks and useless comments; now you're far more likely to get intellectually interesting, deep critique — like handing your work to a very good (if eccentric) peer.
More from AGI Musings
- Joe Edelman proposes "Telocracy": AI-held institutions accountable to their purposes — edelwax · 2026-11-04
- AI-written encyclopedia Scio hits 22,764 articles in 2 months, burning 1.5T tokens (~$403K) — evisoft · 2026-11-04
- The epistemic compression trap: AI makes you confident faster than wise — YogeshMalik · 2026-11-04
- Dev drops adversarial code review for formal verification: 'smarter models just won't need it' — trq212 · 2026-11-04
- Design in the wilderness: UX design is merging with service design in the AI era — manosaie · 2026-11-04
- Richard Socher on AI conducting research: training and GPU kernel gains at Recursive — TWIML AI Podcast · 2026-11-04