From an economist, about his extensive experiments with AI-driven academic research. I don’t have much of a research background, but his experiences seem right where expected.
My point is that the experiment — can we do research at high speed without much human input — was a failure. And it wasn’t just a failure because LLMs aren’t yet good enough. I think that even if LLMs improve greatly, the human taste or judgment in research is still incredibly important, and I saw nothing over the course of the year to suggest that LLMs were able to encroach on that advantage. They could be of great help and certainly make research a ton more fun, but there is something in the judgment that comes from research experience, the judgment of my peers and the importance of letting research gestate that seems more immutable to me than ever.
The creativity and nuanced judgment of what constitutes a good research are still missing in AI. What 2026 will bring is less certain, in my opinion.