Read it. Was not impressed. While the hypothesis is sound ( and likely to be true ), the paper itself is a microcosm of everything wrong with papers these days. For example, referenced "Web Appendix Table W3", which promises seed prompts is missing..

Before you start to feel smug about this and think you're above it.

I've read three blog posts in as many days where their authors quietly reflect that Claude is so good that it has effectively hijacked their own decision making processes when they weigh the value of starting a project.

Do they embark on it, or hand it over to Claude, even if the process is mind-numbing and you learn nothing?

Doesn't sound like there was any incentive to get the answer right, so why would anyone bother fact checking AI answers. These marketing researchers are basically trying to rebrand path of least resistance to be a new thing?

On brand for Wharton I guess.

The Wharton paper this is taken from was discussed last month (142 comments):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47467913

Then you "hack" System 3 and direct everyone to buy your advertiser's product. -- Someone at Google, probably.

[dead]