From building an AI research tool to prompting the research itself

Technical Report: Playing Pretend: Expert Personas Don't Improve Factual Accuracy

[vc_row martech_row_background_position=”None” css=”.vc_custom_1742942106856{margin-bottom: 24px !important;}”][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row martech_row_background_position=”None” css=”.vc_custom_1750970721780{margin-bottom: 40px !important;}”][vc_column width=”5/6″ css=”.vc_custom_1750970738029{margin-bottom: 40px !important;}”][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1764963741477{margin-bottom: 1em !important;}”]This study investigates whether persona prompting improves AI performance on challenging academic benchmarks. We find that despite widespread adoption, assigning expert personas (e.g., “You are a world-class physics expert”) does not reliably improve accuracy. Domain-mismatched…Read More

wharton-generative-ai-labs/AIBO

An open-source tool for running controlled behavioral experiments on AI systems at scale.

AI Research Assistant Claude Scholar: Open Source, Free, and Citation-Verified | João Cláudio Nunes Carvalho posted on the topic | LinkedIn

🚨 Professors are going to hate this. Someone just open sourced an AI that writes research papers from idea to publication. Conference-ready. Citation-verified. Free. It's called Claude Scholar. An AI-powered research system that handles every step of the academic workflow. Idea to publication. Fully automated. No advisor at 2am. No staring at blank LaTeX files. No crying during rebuttal season. Here's what's inside this thing: → AI brainstorms research topics, reviews literature, and finds gaps nobody has explored → Runs statistical analysis on your experiments. t-tests, ANOVA, ablation studies. Publication-ready figures. → Writes your paper section by section. Abstract to conclusion. Conference-formatted. → Verifies every citation through multi-layer validation so AI never hallucinates a reference → Strips robotic AI language and adds human voice so reviewers can't tell → Self-reviews your draft with a 6-point quality checklist before you submit → Parses reviewer comments, classifies each one, and drafts your entire rebuttal Here's the wildest part: It supports NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, AAAI, Nature, Science, Cell, and PNAS. Downloads the conference template, strips sample content, and gives you a clean LaTeX structure ready to write into. The creator says it covers 90% of the academic research lifecycle. Research assistants charge $30 to $60/hour. Conference paper consultants charge $5,000+. Graduate programs cost $50K/year. This is free. All of it. 100% Open Source.

Meet Foundry: An AI Startup that Builds, Evaluates, and Improves AI Agents

Tiles Notebook | Note Taking Tool With AI Agents

A notebook that makes working with AI agents easier.

Arvind Narayanan on Twitter / X

To understand and empathize with how workers in many or most fields outside software experience advances in AI capabilities, I propose a little thought experiment. https://t.co/QZG24aRiBe— Arvind Narayanan (@random_walker) July 28, 2026

CSS Studio. Design by hand. Code by agent.

A visual CSS editor in your browser. Adjust styles with sliders and pickers, and your AI agent writes the changes to source.

Webiny - Open-source AI-Programmable CMS

Webiny – Open-Source AI-Programmable CMS

No. 004: HAI AI Index, virtual cell automation, MCP for scientific literature - The Hallway Track

The Hallway Track No. 004 - How AI is affecting the practice of science

Science that Compounds: The Need for A New Substrate for Research in the Age of AI

This paper is a perspective from Lightcone Research, an open-source initiative building tooling for scientific research in the age of agentic AI.

I love AI, but it still can't design for shit

Without a critical human eye, AI produces slop. The quality bar is yours to maintain.

AI-Assisted Tools in the CHI 2027 Papers Review Process: What They Do, What They Do Not Do, and How Humans Remain Responsible - ACM CHI 2027

AI-Assisted Tools in the CHI 2027 Papers Review Process: What They Do, What They Do Not Do, and How Humans Remain Responsible Authors: Anna Cox, Tony Tang, Thomas Kosch, Erin Solovey, Petra Isenberg, Regan MandrykDate: 2026-08-29 Introduction In our recent post explaining the CHI 2027 Papers review process, we said we would pilot several AI-assisted […]

I used AI. It worked. I hated it.

I used Claude Code to build a tool I needed. It worked great, but I was miserable. I need to reckon with what it means.