Andrew Bean

Andrew Bean (he/him)

Andrew is a DPhil student in Social Data Science, and studies how to better build and evaluate AI agents using user-centric experimental methods.

Areas of interest

Research

Reliability of LLMs as medical assistants for the general public: a randomized preregistered study

Published in Nature Medicine

Press

ARS Technica

Americans ask AI for health care. Hospitals think the answer is more chatbots.

Article cites our research which warns about the risks in AI chatbots giving medical advice.

De Standaard

Dr ChatGPT doesn’t help you any better than Dr Google, and that’s not because of the AI models’ ‘knowledge.’

New study led by Andrew warns of the risks in AI chatbots giving medical advice.

New York Times

Health advice from AI chatbots is frequently wrong, study shows

New study led by Andrew warns of the risks in AI chatbots giving medical advice.

Reuters

AI no better than other methods for patients seeking medical advice, study shows

New study led by Andrew warns of the risks in AI chatbots giving medical advice.

The Register

AI chatbots are no better at medical advice than a search engine

A new study led by OII researchers warns of the risks in AI chatbots giving medical advice.

New York Times

Frustrated by the Medical System, Patients Turn to A.I

Chatbots are cheap, always available, superficially empathetic — and sometimes wrong. Some have concluded they’re a risk worth taking. Article references upcoming study led by Andrew.

de Correspondent

The claims about increasingly smart AI models?

More vibe than science. Luc comments.

NBC News

AI Revolution – NBC News discuss latest OII study exploring AI evaluation

The NBC Morning News programme discuss the findings from Andrew's latest study which finds weaknesses in how AI systems are evaluated.

The Register

AI benchmarks are a bad joke - and LLM makers are the ones laughing

Covers our research finding that many AI benchmarks do not measure the right things.

Gizmodo

AI Capabilities May Be Overhyped on Bogus Benchmarks, Study Finds

Covers our Measuring What Matters study on the construct validity of AI benchmarks.

NBC News

AI’s capabilities may be exaggerated by flawed tests, according to new study

Researchers behind a new study say that the methods used to evaluate AI systems’ capabilities routinely oversell AI performance and lack scientific rigour.

The Guardian

Experts find flaws in hundreds of tests that check AI safety and effectiveness

Scientists say almost all have weaknesses in at least one area that can ‘undermine validity of resulting claims’ with commentary and latest research findings from Andrew.

BMA The Doctor

Bot-ched advice – ‘disturbing’ results in AI study

Rebecca and Andrew comments on our study showing that LLM chatbots can perform worse when interacting with humans than when assessed using benchmarks.

TechCrunch

People struggle to get useful health advice from chatbots, study finds

Coverage of Andrew's study showing that people using AI chatbots for medical self-diagnosis did not make better decisions than people using traditional sources.