This won’t convince people to write their own papers. It will push them to make their AI generated text harder to detect.
Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
51–60 of 140 posts
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? I often feed an entire document I hastily wrote into an AI and prompt it to restructure and rewrite it. I think that’s a common pattern.
It might be, but I really doubt those were the documents flagged as fully AI generated. If it erased all the originality you had put into that work and made it completely bland and regressed-to-the-mean, I would hope that you would notice.
My objective function isn’t to maximize the originality of presentation - it’s to preserve the originality of thought and maximize interpretability. Prompting well can solve for that.
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#53While I think there's significant AI "offloading" in writing, the article's methodology relies on "AI-detectors," which reads like PR for Pangram. I don't need to explain why AI detectors are mostly bullshit and harmful for people who have never used LLMs. [1] 1: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I am not sure if you are familiar with Pangram (co-founder here) but we are a group of research scientists who have made significant progress in this problem space. If your mental model of AI detectors is still GPTZero or the ones that say the declaration of independence is AI, then you probably haven't seen how much better they've gotten. This paper by economists from the University of Chicago economists found zero…
Nothing points out that the benchmark is invalid like a zero false positive rate. Seemingly it is pre-2020 text vs a few models rework of texts. I can see this model fall apart in many real world scenarios. Yes, LLMs use strange language if left to their own devices and this can surely be detected. 0% false positive rate under all circumstances? Implausible.
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#54Whether it’s actually 20% or not doesn’t matter, everyone is aware the signal of the top confs is in freefall. There are also rings of reviewer fraud going on where groups of people in these niche areas all get assigned their own papers and recommend acceptance and in many cases the AC is part of this as well. Am not saying this is common but it is occurring. It feels as if every layer of society is in maximum extrac…
The argument is that there is no incentive to carefully review a paper (I agree), however what used to occur is people would do the right thing without explicit incentives. This has totally disappeared.
The concept of the professional has been basically obliterated in our society. Instead we have people doing engineering, science, and doctoring as, just, jobs. Individual contributors of various flavors to be shuffled around by middle management.
Without professions, there are no more professional communities really, no more professional standards to uphold, no reason to get in the way of somebody’s publications.
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#55Eating one's own dog food? The foremost affected species would be the ones who helped create this monster and standing close to it - programmers, researchers, universities - the knowledge-worker or knowledge-business species.
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#56While I think there's significant AI "offloading" in writing, the article's methodology relies on "AI-detectors," which reads like PR for Pangram. I don't need to explain why AI detectors are mostly bullshit and harmful for people who have never used LLMs. [1] 1: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I think there is a funny bit of mental gymnastics that goes on here sometimes, definitely. LLM skeptics (which I'm not saying the Pangram folks are in particular) would say: "LLMs are unreliable and therefore useless, it's producing slop at great cost to the environment and other people." But if a study comes out that confirms their biases and uses an LLM in the process, or if they themselves use an LLM to identify -- or in many cases just validate their preconceived notion -- that something was drafted using an LLM, then all the sudden things are above board.
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#57AI has left the lab the conferences and journals are all second class citizens to corporate labs at this point. So many technology people wanted to return to the “Bell Labs” model of monopolist controlled innovation, well, you got it.
I’ve been to CVPR, NeurIPS and AGI conferences over the last decade and they used to be where progress in AI was displayed.
No longer. Progress is all in your github and increasingly only dominated by the “new” AI companies (Deepmind, OAI, Anthropic, Alibaba etc…)
No major landscape shifting breakthroughs have come out of CSAIL, BAIR, NYU, TuM etc in ~the last 5 years.
I’d expect this will continue as the only thing that matters at this point is architecture data and compute.
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure if you are familiar with Pangram (co-founder here) but we are a group of research scientists who have made significant progress in this problem space. If your mental model of AI detectors is still GPTZero or the ones that say the declaration of independence is AI, then you probably haven't seen how much better they've gotten. This paper by economists from the University of Chicago economists found zero…
Nothing points out that the benchmark is invalid like a zero false positive rate. Seemingly it is pre-2020 text vs a few models rework of texts. I can see this model fall apart in many real world scenarios. Yes, LLMs use strange language if left to their own devices and this can surely be detected. 0% false positive rate under all circumstances? Implausible.
Our benchmarks of public datasets put our FPR roughly around 1 in 10,000. https://www.pangram.com/blog/all-about-false-positives-in-ai...
Find me a clean public dataset with no AI involvement and I will be happy to report Pangram's false positive rate on it.
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#59While I think there's significant AI "offloading" in writing, the article's methodology relies on "AI-detectors," which reads like PR for Pangram. I don't need to explain why AI detectors are mostly bullshit and harmful for people who have never used LLMs. [1] 1: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I am not sure if you are familiar with Pangram (co-founder here) but we are a group of research scientists who have made significant progress in this problem space. If your mental model of AI detectors is still GPTZero or the ones that say the declaration of independence is AI, then you probably haven't seen how much better they've gotten. This paper by economists from the University of Chicago economists found zero…
The response would be more helpful if it directly addresses the arguments in posts from that search result.
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#60While I think there's significant AI "offloading" in writing, the article's methodology relies on "AI-detectors," which reads like PR for Pangram. I don't need to explain why AI detectors are mostly bullshit and harmful for people who have never used LLMs. [1] 1: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I am not sure if you are familiar with Pangram (co-founder here) but we are a group of research scientists who have made significant progress in this problem space. If your mental model of AI detectors is still GPTZero or the ones that say the declaration of independence is AI, then you probably haven't seen how much better they've gotten. This paper by economists from the University of Chicago economists found zero…
I see the bullshit part continues on the PR side as well, not just in the product.