CEO @Prolific https://xitter.cf/t.co/hmoUnNjHDh
London, England
Joined February 2011
- Tweets4.3K
- Following2.3K
- Followers1.3K
- Likes3.6K
Phelim Bradley retweeted
Solid watch on the situation in France.
Phelim Bradley retweeted
Authenticity checks are now available to use with LimeSurvey and Pavlovia in addition to @Qualtrics.
This includes both LLM and bot detection. Check our guide to see how you can get trusted data from the next study you launch.
Some heavy hitters on this list. Proud to see @Prolific right in the mix! If you want to build with one of the fastest-growing teams in tech, we're hiring: prolific.com/careers
Phelim Bradley retweeted
Changing minds and driving action are different jobs. Kobi and the team show it with real petitions and real donations from almost 15K participants (via Prolific), the latest in a series of AI persuasion studies. Insights from the study below ↓
New in @PNASNews:
In two large experiments (~18k obs from ~14.8k people), we find that brief conversations with AI can get people to take real political action - incl. signing real petitions and giving money to charity.
Surprisingly, the persuasion strategy that worked best for changing people's attitudes - packing convos with info - was the least effective at changing behavior!
🧵
Phelim Bradley retweeted
Congratulations to our AI research team on 2 papers accepted at @NeurIPSConf 2026 🎉
2x accepted papers, MetaLoop and Theory of Mind and Persuasion Beyond Conversation, plus a workshop paper being presented at BiAlign Workshop.
Interesting new UPenn paper below.
Only 1% of 712,930 Prolific submissions (across 127k+ studies) involved AI assistance. Rare, but there are important signals around safeguards, something we’re always treating seriously.
🚨 New paper 🚨
Are your participants using AI to take your study?
We conducted the first study directly observing AI assistance in online research, spanning 700K+ Prolific submissions.
We found very rare, concentrated AI use, but gaps in safeguards.
arxiv.org/abs/2610.09279
Phelim Bradley retweeted
Digital twins are being sold as a faster, cheaper alternative to live participants. On Nov 4, @andrew_j_gordon presents two studies on how accurate twins are and how the people behind them feel about it.
Sign up below.
riverside.com/webinar/regist…
Today, "is this data even human?" is one of the first things researchers want to know.
Pleased to see @Prolific featured in @Forbes recently, with a few important words from our VP of Prolific for Research, Frankie.
forbes.com/sites/garydrenik/…
Phelim Bradley retweeted
Today we're launching Odyssey-3, the most powerful foundation world model yet.
It sets a new state of the art on Physics-IQ, and powers robots, trains AIs, and generates interactive experiences. It's really cool.
Experience the model today, all for free!
Phelim Bradley retweeted
Excited to share ResearchTrails, a dataset of human research decision trajectories extracted from Git commit histories.
Final papers show the outcome, but they often do not capture the full path: abandoned methods, omitted experiments, and ablations. ResearchTrails recovers these intermediate decisions, and we show that learning from them improves LLMs’ ability to assist with research exploration!
Blog, code, data, and the trajectory visualizer are at researchtrails.org
🧵
Phelim Bradley retweeted
We're excited to be at @COLM_conf 2026 from Oct 6-9, the conference spotlighting cutting-edge LM research.
Find us at Booth #200, plus explore COLM papers that cite Prolific in their data collection or human evaluation process.
↓
Phelim Bradley retweeted
MSR & AAPOR’s @DavMicRot doesn't believe synthetic data will ever replace human respondents.
He expects it to reshape the survey workflow: run synthetics first, validate with real humans, then iterate, using as many or more humans than before.
Watch on The Signal.
Today we launched The Signal, @Prolific's new podcast on research evidence, not research tools or trends.
David and Andrew discussed what research quality looks like once you remove the human from the process. Give it a watch!
Has AI been a net positive or negative for survey research?
In episode 1 of The Signal, Dr. David Rothschild (@MSFTResearch, @AAPOR AI task force Co-chair) joins @andrew_j_gordon on where AI helps, where synthetic data breaks down, and why transparency beats standards.
Our team recently tested whether AI can replace human survey respondents, using simulated LLM personas against a real US survey (N = 996).
Turns out demographic personas make it worse, idiographic information helps a little, and output format is the biggest lever of all.
Synthetic data predicts human opinion; it's not a substitute for measuring it.
Pre-print: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…
Can an LLM fake being a human survey respondent? We tested it on 996 real people using a poll plus a 10-minute qualitative interview (via Outset). New paper: "Do Richer Personas Improve LLM Survey Simulation? A Fidelity Paradox"
Takeaway: synthetic respondents are fine for cheap, directional signal. They're not a replacement for real human data.
Authors: Nora Petrova, John Burden, Oriol Jover, Ning Ding.
Paper: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…