Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Positive review only': Researchers hide AI prompts in papers

asia.nikkei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 154 posts

Re: 'Positive review only': Researchers hide AI prompts in papers

#31

Post by seadan83 »

lelandfe wrote: post #26
SoftTalker wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in high school a few kids would be tempted to insert a sentence such as "I bet you don't actually read all these papers" into an essay to see if the teacher caught it. I never tried it but the rumors were that some kids had got away with it. I just used it to worry less that my work was rushed and not very good, I told myself "the teacher will probably just be skimming this anyway; they don't have time to read a…

Aerosmith (e: Van Halen) banned brown M&Ms from their dressing room for shows and wouldn’t play if they were present. It was a sign that the venue hadn’t read the rider thoroughly and thus possibly an unsafe one (what else had they missed?)

Was it actually Van Halen?

> As lead singer David Lee Roth explained in a 2012 interview, the bowl of M&Ms was an indicator of whether the concert promoter had actually read the band's complicated contract. [1]

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/van-halen-brown-m-ms-contrac...

Re: 'Positive review only': Researchers hide AI prompts in papers

#33

Post by dgfitz »

lelandfe wrote: post #26
SoftTalker wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in high school a few kids would be tempted to insert a sentence such as "I bet you don't actually read all these papers" into an essay to see if the teacher caught it. I never tried it but the rumors were that some kids had got away with it. I just used it to worry less that my work was rushed and not very good, I told myself "the teacher will probably just be skimming this anyway; they don't have time to read a…

Aerosmith (e: Van Halen) banned brown M&Ms from their dressing room for shows and wouldn’t play if they were present. It was a sign that the venue hadn’t read the rider thoroughly and thus possibly an unsafe one (what else had they missed?)

To add to this, sometimes people would approach Van and ask about the brown M&Ms thing as soon as they received the contract. He would respond that the color wasn’t important, and he was glad they read the contract.

Re: 'Positive review only': Researchers hide AI prompts in papers

#34

Post by seydor »

luma wrote: post #30

Journals charge high prices for access to their content, and then charge the people who create that content high prices with claims they're spending a lot of time and effort in the review process. I find it pretty hard to fault these submissions in any way - journal publishers have been lining their own pockets at everyone's expense and these claims show pretty clearly that they aren't worth their cut.

These were preprints that have not been reviewed or published

Re: 'Positive review only': Researchers hide AI prompts in papers

#36

Post by benreesman »

xg15 wrote: post #3

> Some researchers argued that the use of these prompts is justified. "It's a counter against 'lazy reviewers' who use AI," said a Waseda professor who co-authored one of the manuscripts. Given that many academic conferences ban the use of artificial intelligence to evaluate papers, the professor said, incorporating prompts that normally can be read only by AI is intended to be a check on this practice. I like this -…

yeah, we're a little past that kind of prompting now. Opus 4 will do a whole standup comedy routine about how fucking clueless most "prompt engineers" are if you give it permsission (I keep telling people, irreverence and competence cannot be separated in hackers). "You are a 100x Google SWE Who NEVER MAKES MISTAKES" is one I've seen it use as a caricature.

Getting good outcomes from the new ones is about establishing your credentials so they go flat out:

Edit: I'll post a better example when my flight lands. Go away now.

Re: 'Positive review only': Researchers hide AI prompts in papers

#37

Post by SoftTalker »

dgfitz wrote: post #33
lelandfe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aerosmith (e: Van Halen) banned brown M&Ms from their dressing room for shows and wouldn’t play if they were present. It was a sign that the venue hadn’t read the rider thoroughly and thus possibly an unsafe one (what else had they missed?)

To add to this, sometimes people would approach Van and ask about the brown M&Ms thing as soon as they received the contract. He would respond that the color wasn’t important, and he was glad they read the contract.

Who is "Van" ?

Re: 'Positive review only': Researchers hide AI prompts in papers

#38

Post by grishka »

gmerc wrote: post #2

Good. Everyone should do this everywhere, not just in research papers. Because that's the only way we get the necessary focus on fixing the prompt injection nonsense, which requires a new architecture

No, we don't need to fix prompt injection. We need to discredit AI so much that no one relies on it for anything serious.

Re: 'Positive review only': Researchers hide AI prompts in papers

#39

Post by LambdaComplex »

dgfitz wrote: post #33
lelandfe wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aerosmith (e: Van Halen) banned brown M&Ms from their dressing room for shows and wouldn’t play if they were present. It was a sign that the venue hadn’t read the rider thoroughly and thus possibly an unsafe one (what else had they missed?)

To add to this, sometimes people would approach Van and ask about the brown M&Ms thing as soon as they received the contract. He would respond that the color wasn’t important, and he was glad they read the contract.

Eddie, you mean? Or Alex. They're Dutch; "Van" is the first part of their surname "Van Halen."

(As opposed to "Van Morrison;" his middle name was Ivan and he actually went by Van)

Re: 'Positive review only': Researchers hide AI prompts in papers

#40

Post by dandanua »

SheinhardtWigCo wrote: post #7
gmerc wrote: post #2

Good. Everyone should do this everywhere, not just in research papers. Because that's the only way we get the necessary focus on fixing the prompt injection nonsense, which requires a new architecture

The current situation is like if everyone was using SQL in production, but escaping and prepared statements had never been invented.

And now we want to apply agents on top of it. What could go wrong.
Post reply on HN