ChatGPT’s Advanced Research: Can It Replace a Human Expert?

OpenAI’s “deep research” is the latest AI tool generating buzz, claiming to accomplish in minutes what would take a human expert hours.

Integrated into ChatGPT Pro and promoted as a research assistant on par with a trained analyst, it autonomously browses the web, gathers sources, and generates structured reports. Impressively, it scored 26.6% on Humanity’s Last Exam (HLE), a challenging AI benchmark, surpassing many other models.

Limitations of Deep Research

However, deep research falls short of its promises. While it generates well-structured reports, it has significant shortcomings. Journalists who have tested it note that it can overlook crucial details, have difficulty with recent information, and occasionally fabricate facts.

OpenAI acknowledges these issues in its list of tool limitations, stating that it “can sometimes hallucinate facts or draw incorrect conclusions, though at a significantly lower rate than existing ChatGPT models, according to internal evaluations.”

This isn’t unexpected, as AI models don’t possess knowledge in the same way humans do, making occasional inaccuracies inevitable.

Questions Surrounding AI as a Research Analyst

The concept of an AI “research analyst” brings up many questions. Can even the most advanced machine genuinely replace a skilled expert? What impact would this have on knowledge-based professions? And is AI enhancing our ability to think critically, or simply encouraging us to think less?

The concept of an AI “research analyst” brings up many questions. Can even the most advanced machine genuinely replace a skilled expert? What impact would this have on knowledge-based professions? And is AI enhancing our ability to think critically, or simply encouraging us to think less?

Designed for professionals in fields like finance, science, policy, law, and engineering—as well as academics, journalists, and business strategists—OpenAI’s deep research is the latest “agentic experience” introduced in ChatGPT. It aims to handle complex research tasks in just minutes.

Currently, deep research is available exclusively to ChatGPT Pro users in the U.S. for $200 per month. OpenAI plans to expand access to Plus, Team, and Enterprise users in the coming months, with a more affordable version in development.

Unlike standard chatbots that generate quick answers, deep research follows a multi-step process to create a structured report:

• The user submits a request, such as a market analysis or legal case summary.
• The AI refines the task, asking clarifying questions if needed.
• It conducts web searches, reviewing sources like news articles, research papers, and databases.
• The AI synthesizes findings, structuring them into a detailed report with citations.
• Within five to 30 minutes, the user receives a multi-page document—potentially as in-depth as a PhD-level thesis.

While this may seem like an ideal tool for knowledge workers, a closer look reveals notable limitations.

Early tests have highlighted several key weaknesses:

• Limited contextual understanding: While AI can summarize information, it often fails to grasp what is truly significant.
• Outdated insights: It has overlooked major legal rulings and scientific breakthroughs.
• Fact fabrication: Like other AI models, it can confidently produce inaccurate information.
• Inability to assess credibility: It struggles to differentiate between authoritative sources and unreliable ones.

Despite OpenAI’s claims that deep research can match human analysts, AI ultimately lacks the critical thinking, scrutiny, and expertise that define high-quality research.

ChatGPT isn’t the only AI capable of searching the web and generating reports from a few prompts. Just 24 hours after OpenAI’s launch, Hugging Face introduced a free, open-source alternative that delivers nearly comparable performance.

The greatest risk with deep research and similar AI tools claiming “human-level” capabilities is the false perception that AI can replace human thought. While AI can summarize data, it cannot challenge its own assumptions, identify knowledge gaps, think creatively, or interpret diverse perspectives.

AI-generated summaries lack the depth and insight of a skilled human researcher.

No matter how fast an AI agent is, it remains a tool—not a substitute for human intelligence. For knowledge workers, the key is to develop skills that AI can’t replicate, such as critical thinking, fact-checking, deep expertise, and creativity.

When using AI research tools, responsible practices are essential. AI can improve efficiency, like summarizing documents, but human judgment should guide decision-making. Always verify sources, as AI-generated citations can be misleading, and don’t accept conclusions without cross-checking with reputable sources. For high-stakes topics—such as health, justice, and democracy—expert input is crucial.

Despite aggressive marketing, generative AI still has significant limitations. Those who can synthesize information creatively, challenge assumptions, and think critically will remain invaluable—AI isn’t ready to replace them just yet.

Read the original article on: Science Alert

Read more: Elon Musk Confirms the Launch of Grok 3 as the Most Advanced AI in the World