# Even little Haiku found about twice as many major errors as human reviewers.

- Source: Andrew Curran
- Published: 2026-10-29T19:29:02.000Z
- Bad Influence: https://badinfluence.news/items/bhkfc0c6ok7x31q9b7xcf314t
- Original: https://x.com/AndrewCurran_/status/2115888659753062561

## Summary

Even little Haiku found about twice as many major errors as human reviewers.

## Post

Even little Haiku found about twice as many major errors as human reviewers.

![](https://badinfluence.news/api/img-proxy?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpbs.twimg.com%2Fmedia%2FHV0lhUpbwAAXkKN.jpg&mode=thumb&exp=1793491200&sig=d3649b44dd0db0fb)

## Quoted post @rust_ruslan

> Lots of debate this week on whether journals should ban AI in peer review. 
> 
> We actually tested this in our new preprint, and the results were pretty clear to me.
> 
> For context, I've reviewed for most of the big journals and evaluated 1,000 human reviews as an editor. I love to read and evaluate science.
> 
> TLDR: From now on I won't do any peer review without AI. For clinical trials, I'd even call human-only review dangerous 🧵

https://x.com/rust_ruslan/status/2115493697001513053