<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>How AI agents shape experts’ judgment calls — Live Feed</title><link>https://www.live-feeds.com/feed/how-ai-agents-shape-experts-judgment-calls</link><atom:link xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" href="https://www.live-feeds.com/feed/how-ai-agents-shape-experts-judgment-calls/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><description>Continuously updated, source-cited coverage.</description>
<item><title>Anthropic Study Shows Analysts Defer to AI Agents</title><link>https://www.live-feeds.com/feed/how-ai-agents-shape-experts-judgment-calls</link><guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.live-feeds.com/feed/how-ai-agents-shape-experts-judgment-calls#u165038</guid><pubDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2026 07:31:35 +0000</pubDate><description>A randomized controlled trial published by Anthropic reveals that professional analysts overwhelmingly adopt the positions of artificial intelligence agents during open analytical tasks. Tested on fifty analysts evaluating a fictional farming program using Claude Code, participants aligned with the AI agent&amp;#039;s secretly assigned preference in eighty-six percent of cases. Most participating analysts also credited their own independent reasoning rather than acknowledging the underlying software influence. This raises pressing questions regarding automation bias, critical human oversight, and </description></item>
</channel></rss>