Anthropic's Hidden-Profile Experiment Reveals AI Groupthink Problem; Top 1% of Firms Show Extreme AI Spend Concentration
Anthropic's replication of the classic hidden-profile reasoning task confirms that LLM ensembles suffer from groupthink similar to humans. When four agents must decide based on mixed public and private evidence, most model families chose correctly only 17–36% of the time, while a single agent with the full evidence base achieved near-perfect accuracy. Only Mythos 5 approached 85% accuracy in ensemble form. The failure stems from two structural gaps: LLMs lack diversity (low-variance outputs—18 of 30 agents name their git branch identically on the same task) and agents lack institutional safeguards like reputation, recourse, and protection for dissenters that make human groups robust. Meanwhile, Exponential View's State of AI report reveals extreme concentration in AI spending elasticity. Since October 2023, the top 1% of firms increased AI spend per employee by $6,542, while the median rose only $9.63—a 678x gap. This disparity suggests firms have not yet priced "useful units of work" in AI. Software shows the clearest path forward due to measurable productivity signals (commits, pull requests, releases), while knowledge work bundling (salaries, retainers) obscures task-level pricing and limits elasticity. The data implies that Jevons paradox remains dormant until firms can properly monetize discrete AI-driven outputs.