Generative AI embeddings bring 50,000 real product descriptions into one experiment, AI-generated headshots expose bias against femininity, and PNAS asks whether AI-generated science has a validity problem.

Science asks whether AI is ready for peer review, Nature asks who is responsible when AI helps write a paper, and a new PNAS framework brings causal inference to text and images.

New evidence from Strategic Management Journal and Information Systems Research on how generative AI reshapes innovation and collaboration — plus algorithmic evaluation, grounded theory with GenAI, and LLM language prediction.

A new analysis puts LLM-assisted writing in nearly 90% of recent PubMed Central papers. Meanwhile, management scholars argue the valuable skill is no longer prompting AI — it's directing it.

A PNAS reanalysis shows a headline result on LLM-driven research productivity can be reproduced with random, inverted and pre-ChatGPT placebo treatments — plus AI agents that can't yet reproduce their own field's papers, platform AI policies that drive creators away, and LLM-simulated bank runs.

AI agents are fact-checking the published canon and turning up decades-old errors in papers and reference tables — while journals debate whether AI should be patching peer review or replacing it. Plus: the next Turing tests, generative AI as a causal tool, and a model predicting we'll 'do more, less well'.

A Strategic Management Journal framework for running experiments with LLM-powered agents, a PNAS essay on whether research stays a human enterprise, and store cameras turned into an 'offline clickstream'.

A 7.3-million-article study says most published papers now show signs of LLM influence — and a new PNAS exchange argues the yardstick itself is broken. Plus: when AI teams don't need to coordinate, ML from 14 examples, and 500 years of art in latent space.

Consumer psychologists debate AI-assisted grounded theory, management scholars audit 353 computational-linguistics papers, and legal researchers argue that nobody is independently benchmarking the AI tools already in professional use.

Researchers quietly manipulated public datasets and handed them to frontier AI agents. About half the time, the agents reached the conclusion the 'fraudsters' wanted — plus AI reviewers at ICML, and what happens to teams when colleagues stop asking each other.

A new PNAS study built autonomous AI analysts and turned them loose on fixed datasets. They reproduced the dispersion of human many-analyst studies — and swapping the analyst's persona shifted the results, even among methodologically sound runs.

GPT-4 forecast the results of 70 real survey experiments almost as well as running them — and a new Science agent now runs biomedical studies on its own. What autonomous research instruments mean for your lab.

New AI systems from Google DeepMind and FutureHouse generate hypotheses, design experiments and interpret results — but the evidence still comes from the lab bench. Plus deepfake face detection, deep learning for company dynamics, and the evolvable-AI threat debate.

A four-study look at when humans take AI financial advice, a blueprint for governing AI in peer review, and new tools for doing inference with machine-generated variables.

A new ISR study shows why feeding AI-generated variables straight into your regressions biases the results — plus a deep-learning ECG biomarker, agentic GenAI in operations, and meta-learning for consumer preferences.

Early evidence that AI tools may erode the skills they were meant to augment, the risk of a scientific 'monoculture,' an autonomous medical AI agent, and new work on AI-assisted creativity and algorithmic transparency.

Early evidence that AI may be dulling the skills it was meant to sharpen — set against a 791-person field experiment at P&G where AI worked like a teammate, plus a paradox in how AI democratizes knowledge.

A 41-million-paper study on AI's double-edged effect on science, an autonomous medical AI that out-diagnoses physicians, and what AI agents mean for research.