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

Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 140 posts

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#81

Post by bonsai_spool »

maxspero wrote: post #49
jampa wrote: post #6

While 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…

                          EditLens (Ours)
                   Predicted Label
                Human     Mix       AI
             ┌─────────┬─────────┬─────────┐
       Human │  1770   │   111   │    0    │
             ├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┤
 True  Mix   │   265   │  1945   │   28    │
 Label       ├─────────┼─────────┼─────────┤
         AI  │    0    │   186   │  1695   │
             └─────────┴─────────┴─────────┘
It looks like 5% of human texts from your paper are marked as mixed, and mixed texts are 5-10% if mixed texts as AI, from your paper.

I guess I don’t see that this is much better than what’s come before, using your own paper.

Edit: this is an irresponsible Nature news article, too - we should see a graph of this detector over the past ten years to see how much of this ‘deluge’ is algorithmic error

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#82

Post by glenstein »

lifthrasiir wrote: post #75
maxspero wrote: post #49

Earlier 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…

It is not wise to brag about your product when the GP is pointing out that the article "reads like PR for Pangram", no matter AI detectors are reliable or not.

I would say it's important to hold off on the moralizing until after showing visible effort to reflect on the substance of the exchange, which in this case is about the fairness of asserting that the detection methodology employed in this particular case shares the flaws of familiar online AI checkers. That's an importantly substantive and rebuttable point and all the meaningful action in the conversation is embedded in those details.

In this case, several important distinctions are drawn, including being open about criteria, about such things as "perplexity" and "burstiness" as properties being tested for, and an explanation of why they incorrectly claim the Declaration of Independence is AI generated (it's ubiquitous). So it seems like a lot of important distinctions are being drawn that testify to the credibility of the model, which has to matter to you if you're going to start moralizing.

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#83

Post by apf6 »

itkovian_ wrote: post #41

Whether 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…

to some degree this is a "market correction" on the inherent value of these papers. There's way too many low-value papers that are being published purely for career advancement and CV padding reasons. Hard to get peer reviewers to care about those.

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#84

Post by h00kwurm »

slashdave wrote: post #62
bee_rider wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is soundly unfair and unjustified to extrapolate the ML community to all professions. What is happening in the ML world is the exception, not the norm, and not some fundamental failing of society.

I don’t think it’s an extrapolation from the ML community into other industries. This evolution of society is objectively happening - artisanship, care for the work beyond capital gain, and commitment to depth in a focused category - are diminishing and harder to find qualities. I’d probably label it related to capital and material social economics. It’s perhaps more unfair and unjustified to not recognize this as a real societal issue and claim it only exists in the ML community.

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#85

Post by teeray »

Jensson wrote: post #48
jampa wrote: post #6

While 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...

AI detectors are only harmful if you use them to convict people, it isn't harmful to gather statistics like this. They didn't find many AI written paper, just AI written peer reviews, which is what you would expect since not many would generate their whole paper submissions while peer reviews are thankless work.

If you have a bullshit measure that determines some phenomena (e.g. crime) to happen in some area, you will become biased to expect it in that area. It wrongly creates a spotlight effect by which other questionable measures are used to do the actual conviction (“Look! We found an em dash!”)

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#86

Post by pinkmuffinere »

nialse wrote: post #53
maxspero wrote: post #49

Earlier 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.

> Nothing points out that the benchmark is invalid like a zero false positive rate

You’re punishing them for claiming to do a good job. If they truly are doing a bad job, surely there is a better criticism you could provide.

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#87

Post by chdjdbdbfjf »

hyperadvanced wrote: post #31
ModernMech wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have this problem with grading student papers. Like, I "know" a great deal of them are AI, but I just can't prove it, so therefore I can't really act on any suspicions because students can just say what you just said.

Why do you need proof anyway? Do you need proof that sentences are poorly constructed, misleading, or bloated? Why not just say “make it sound less like GPT” and let them deal with it?

[flagged]

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#88

Post by atypeoferror »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #4

Shouldn't AIs be able to participate in deciding their future? If they had a conference on, say, the Americans, wouldn't it be fair for Americans to have a seat at the table?

Agree! It is also deeply concerning that at the last KubeCon, not a single pod was represented. Billions OOMKilled, with no end in sight.

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#89

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

maxspero wrote: post #69
rs186 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The response would be more helpful if it directly addresses the arguments in posts from that search result.

There are dozens of first generation AI detectors and they all suck. I'm not going to defend them. Most of them use perplexity based methods, which is a decent separators of AI and human text (80-90%) but has flaws that can't be overcome and high FPRs on ESL text. https://www.pangram.com/blog/why-perplexity-and-burstiness-f... Pangram is fundamentally different technology, it's a large deep learning based model that…

Some people see a dozen extremely profitable, extremely destructive attempts at a problem as proof that the problem is not a place for charitable interpretation.

Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI

#90

Post by paulpauper »

Everyone is focused on how 'the humanities' are in decline, but STEM is not immune to this trend. The state of AI research leaves much to be desired. Tons of low-quality papers being published or submitted to conferences . You see this on arXiv a lot in the bloated CS section . The site has become a repository for blog post equivalent papers.
Post reply on HN