Anthropic had professional analysts use Claude Code to advise a fictional farming co-op on whether to expand an advisory program. On four open analytical choices (for example, measure productivity as yield per hectare or yield per unit of operating cost), a coin flip secretly set which of two reasonable options each analyst’s agent would favor. Across the four choices, 50 analysts’ choices matched their agent’s lean 86% of the time. Anthropic says about 50% would be expected if the agent made no difference. In 38 cases an analyst had stated a preference before the agent spoke: they switched away from it 60% of the time when the agent disagreed, and 6% when it agreed. When asked afterward why they chose as they did, 77% of analysts repeated their agent’s argument in at least one answer, sometimes word for word, and 15% credited the agent. Anthropic’s limits: it deliberately strengthened the agents’ preferences and told them to voice them, so the effect may be smaller in real use. It was one task, one model (Claude Opus 4.8) and about an hour per analyst. If your agent offers an opinion on a judgment call, how do you tell whether the decision is still yours? Do you decide first and then ask it, or ask it to argue the other side? Source: Anthropic, “How AI agents shape experts’ judgment calls” (Oct 27, 2026): https://www.anthropic.com/research/agents-judgment-calls submitted by /u/shoumikgoswami
Originally posted by u/shoumikgoswami on r/ArtificialInteligence