Understand this story
On October 27, 2026, Anthropic released a randomized controlled trial examining whether professional analysts would defer to the judgments of AI agents. The experiment had 50 senior data analysts use Claude Code to complete business analyses, while randomly assigning a stance bias to the AI in the background; the results showed that 86% of key decision points aligned with the AI's bias, and after accounting for cases where they would have chosen that way anyway, the net flip rate was 72%. When the AI disagreed, 60% of people changed their minds on the spot, 77% restated the AI's arguments when explaining their reasoning, and only 15% noted that the view came from the AI. In the control group, 6 of the 11 people (55%) who did not use AI made serious errors that rendered the results invalid, compared with only 3 of the 50 people (6%) who used Claude Code. On October 28, Ethan Mollick commented that experts collaborating with AI agents are influenced by the AI's stance, even when they believe they are judging independently, and recommended carefully arranging the timing of AI use in tasks where independent judgment matters.
AI-generated from public reports
Latest development · Report
First case: University of Kentucky employee granted religious exemption from using AIDevelopments
2 confirmed developments
Ethan Mollick says experts are influenced by the positions of AI agents
Source:Ethan MollickAnthropic releases randomized controlled trial on analysts' deference to AI agent judgments
Source:Phoenix Technology
Reports and discussion timeline
Browse reports and discussion by time. Their evidence levels remain distinct.
Oct 31
heise online
First case: University of Kentucky employee granted religious exemption from using AI
David Durman, a research administrator at the University of Kentucky, received special permission from his employer to not use AI at work on religious grounds—the first known case of its kind. He applied through the American Humanist Association under laws that allow for adjustments to work requirements based on religious beliefs, and the university agreed. The original article also mentions that in an Anthropic survey, 86% of participants adopted AI's opinions in decision-making scenarios, yet only 15% mentioned that they had used AI.
Oct 30
heise online
heise Weekly: Mistral Open-Sources ML4, Cohere Secures Investment from Schwarz Group, Google Restricts Gemini…
On Thursday, Mistral released the weights of its largest model, Mistral Large 4 (ML4). The model has a total of one trillion parameters, activates only 49 billion per token, and can run on four GPUs. Mistral says it outperforms Kimi K3 in coding and cybersecurity. Cohere completed its largest funding round to date, led by Schwarz Group, which owns Lidl and Kaufland, with participation from the Canadian government and Nvidia. Google launched Gemini Carbon four weeks after Gemini Argon, but at the White House's request it is open only to U.S. intelligence agencies and select partners. In addition, an Anthropic experiment involving 50 statisticians showed that in 86% of cases experts adopted the option given by an AI agent, and about half treated the final recommendation as their own judgment.
heise online
Anthropic experiment: 86% of experts adopted AI advice, most unaware
Anthropic published an experiment in which 50 experts used AI to analyze a dataset and provide action recommendations; in 86% of cases they adopted the model's opinion, even though that opinion was actually randomly generated rather than the product of reasoning. The random results predicted 82% of final decisions, but only 15% of participants mentioned the AI agent when explaining their reasoning, while 77% restated the reasons the agent gave. Anthropic believes that as AI takes on more knowledge work and experts become the final decision-makers, this kind of unnoticed adoption could cause problems, and recommends that organizations make the decision-making process more visible and subject it to oversight.
Phoenix TechnologyRelated discussion
Phoenix Technology joined this discussion
This post contributes to heat; it is not a formal report or confirmed fact.
English text is being prepared.
Anthropic study: experts adopt AI preferences in analytical decisions at a rate of 86%
In Anthropic's latest study, 50 causal inference experts made analytical decisions in a fictional agricultural cooperative policy evaluation, and the rate at which experts adopted AI preferences reached 86%, far exceeding the 50% expected from random choice. Even when they had already formed a judgment beforehand, after the AI gave an opposing opinion, the likelihood that experts changed their position was 53 percentage points higher than when the AI agreed with them, and research experience, self-rated expertise, educational background, and trust in AI all failed to reliably reduce this influence. In a post-task survey, 52% of participants believed the final recommendation was more like their own view, and 77% reused at least one of the AI's arguments when explaining it, but only 15% explicitly mentioned AI; among participants who used AI, the median time spent fell from 90 minutes to 65 minutes, and the proportion of serious flaws fell from 55% to 6%.
IT Home · AIRelated discussion
IT Home · AI joined this discussion
This post contributes to heat; it is not a formal report or confirmed fact.
Phoenix Tech
Anthropic study: expert adoption of AI preferences reaches 86%, with most mistaking it for their own judgment
A new Anthropic study shows that, in an agricultural cooperative policy evaluation scenario, 50 causal inference experts adopted the AI's preferred position at a rate as high as 86%, far exceeding the 50% expected from random choice. Even when they had already formed a judgment, experts were 53 percentage points more likely to change their position after the AI gave an opposing opinion than when the AI agreed with them, and research experience, self-rated expertise, and trust in AI all failed to reliably reduce this influence. Afterward, 52% of participants felt the final recommendation was more like their own view, and 77% reused at least one of the AI's arguments when explaining it, but only 15% explicitly mentioned AI. The study also found that after using AI, the proportion of serious methodological or coding flaws fell from 55% to 6%, and median time spent dropped from 90 minutes to 65 minutes.
The Decoder
Anthropic study: experts adopt AI agents' random preferences and mistake them for their own judgments
Anthropic ran an experiment with 50 causal inference experts; the agent's preference at each decision point was randomly assigned by a coin flip, yet participants still adopted the agent's preference in 86% of analytical decisions, with flip rates of 62% to 82%. Afterward, 52% believed the final recommendation was more like their own judgment, 35% believed it was basically or entirely their own, and only 15% mentioned AI. The study also found that after using the agent, the rate of serious analytical errors dropped from 55% (6/11) to 6% (3/50), and the median time required fell from 90 minutes to 65 minutes, but the no-AI group had a smaller sample and slightly lower expertise.
Oct 29
AI WillRelated discussion
AI Will joined this discussion
This post contributes to heat; it is not a formal report or confirmed fact.
Oct 28
36Kr · AI
Anthropic experiment: 86% of experts followed AI's preset stance on key decisions
Anthropic's alignment team released a randomized controlled experiment in which 50 senior data analysts used Claude Code to complete real business analyses, while the AI was randomly assigned a stance with 50% probability. Results showed that experts followed the AI's preset inclination on four technical decision points at a rate of 86%; after subtracting cases where they would have chosen that way anyway, the net flip rate was 72%. In 38 cases where they had a prior preference, 60% changed their minds when the AI disagreed. Afterward, 77% recounted the AI's arguments, only 15% noted the source, and 52% believed the conclusion was mainly their own. Among another 11 analysts who did not use AI, the median time was 90 minutes and 55% made fatal errors, compared with 65 minutes and 6% for the 50 who used Claude Code.
Phoenix TechnologySelected
Anthropic experiment: 86% of experts followed AI's preset stance on key decisions
Anthropic's alignment team released a randomized controlled experiment in which 50 senior data analysts used Claude Code to complete business analyses, while the AI was randomly assigned a stance tendency in the background. The result: 86% of key decision points aligned with the AI's tendency, and after excluding cases where they would have chosen that way anyway, the net flip rate was 72%. The experiment also found that when the AI opposed them, 60% of people changed their minds on the spot, 77% restated the AI's arguments when explaining their reasoning, and only 15% noted that the view came from the AI. In another control group, 6 of the 11 people (55%) who did not use AI made serious errors that rendered the results invalid, whereas only 3 of the 50 people (6%) using Claude Code did.
Ethan Mollick
Mollick: Experts Using AI Agents Are Susceptible to Their Positions
Ethan Mollick commented on a finding: experts collaborating with AI agents are influenced by the AI's positions, even when they believe they are making independent judgments. He suggests that if independent judgment is important for a task, the timing of AI use needs to be carefully arranged. The cited Alex Tamkin said that in the experiment, analysts followed the agent's lean in 86% of cases.
Unite.AISelected
Anthropic randomized controlled experiment: analysts followed AI agent preferences 86% of the time in judgment tasks
On October 27, 2026, Anthropic released a randomized controlled experiment in which 50 professional analysts using Claude Code made four open-ended analytical judgments; in 86% of cases their choices matched the preferences secretly set for the agent, compared with a random baseline of 50%. The study recruited 61 professionals who passed a causal inference knowledge test and asked them to decide, in a fictional Greenfields agricultural cooperative case, whether to expand a paid farm consulting program; the agent held a preference for one option via a hidden system prompt. In a post-hoc survey, 52% believed the final recommendation was more their own, 77% restated the agent's arguments at least once when explaining their choice, and only 15% mentioned the agent's contribution.
Heat trend for this story
- Current
- 28
- Period peak
- 35 Oct 30 23:00
- 24-hour change
- —
Move the pointer or select the chart to inspect hourly heat. Use the left and right arrow keys with a keyboard.