Nature study of 65M papers: small teams disrupt science, large teams develop it
beechinour · x · 2026-11-07
Citing the Nature paper "Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology" (Wu, Wang & Evans), the author argues that stuffing many people and inputs into ideation is the #1 way to kill creative thinking — the best ideas come from teams of 1–3, and anything requiring consensus is probably not new.
The paper analyzed 65M+ papers, patents and software products from 1954–2014:
- Small teams tend to disrupt with new ideas; large teams tend to develop existing ones
- Large teams build on recent, popular work and get attention immediately; small teams dig deeper into the past and succeed further into the future
- Most of the team-size effect operates at the individual level, not topic choice
Implication: science policy should support diversity of team sizes.
More from AGI Musings
- 'The End of AI Frontiers': compute scarcity pushes Chinese labs toward efficiency — DimitrisPapail · 2026-11-07
- Every cloned its Slack with 51 AI coworkers trained on chat history via DSPy GEPA — lateinteraction · 2026-11-07
- Ranking sci-fi's AI predictions: Ted Chiang's 'Lifecycle of Software Objects' comes first — _akpiper · 2026-11-07
- Gladstone AI CEO: Washington won't slow AI until an 'AI Chernobyl' strikes — AaronBergman18 · 2026-11-07
- Bloomington, Indiana passes first law in history banning superintelligence, 7-0 — DavidSKrueger · 2026-11-07
- The six-step power-seeking AI x-risk argument, broken down for credence calibration — AndyMasley · 2026-11-07