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

2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews

blog.icml.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 172 posts

Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews

#41

Post by merelysounds »

Related discussion elsewhere and from a different point of view:

> ICML: every paper in my review batch contains prompt-injection text embedded in the PDF

source: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1r3oekq/d_...

There are recent comments there as well:

> Desk Reject Comments: The paper is desk rejected, because the reciprocal reviewer nominated for this paper ([OpenReview ID redacted]) has violated the LLM reviewing policy. The reviewer was required to follow Policy A (no LLMs), but we have found a strong evidence that LLM was used in the preparation of at least one of their reviews. This is a breach of peer-review ethics and grounds for desk rejection. (...)

source: https://old.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1r3oekq/d_...

Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews

#42

Post by manbash »

jacquesm wrote: post #19
everdrive wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking people have worse impulse control than they believe they do. Once you give a tool that does most of the work for you, very very few people will actually be able to use that tool in truly enriching ways. The majority of people (even the smart ones) will weaken over time and take shortcuts.

I have a very simple solution to this but it is a bit expensive. I run two laptops, one that I talk to an LLM on and another where I do all my work and which is my main machine. The LLM is strictly there in a consulting role, I've done some coding experiments as well (see previous comments) but nothing that stood out to me as a major improvement. The trick is: I can't cut-and-paste between the two machines. So there…

This somewhat of the equivalent of "quitting cold turkey", in the sense that you remove the temptation from your reach.

The problem is that it's just much easier to un-quit and run the LLM in the same laptop you work on.

It's just so very tempting.

Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews

#43

Post by wiseowise »

mikkupikku wrote: post #11
hodgehog11 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking this too, but I don't believe this is the case, and I feel like it would not be a good idea either. Most of these people are likely students; this should be a learning moment, but I don't think it is yet grounds for their entire academic career to be crippled by being unable to publish in a top-tier ML venue.

If this is tolerated, it sends exactly the wrong kind of message. The students, if they are, should be banned for life. Let them serve as an example for myriads of future students, this will be a better outcome in the long run. This didn't trip for people who were merely bouncing ideas off a LLM, they caught people who copy and pasted straight from their LLM.

Why not put them on a chain and let village stone them? Or better yet shoot them on the spot! That would send a message for sure.

Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews

#44

Post by jojomodding »

quinndupont wrote: post #39
mikkupikku wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, I hope these frauds have been banned for life.

It’s an unethical, false choice. The reviewers are not perfectly rational agents that do free work, they have real needs and desires. Shame on ICML for exploiting their desperation.

Is it? The reviewers could simply have chosen a different option in a form field. While I understand that they were "forced" to review under reciprocal review, they still had other choices where I don't see coercion happening and that could have avoided the outcome for them.

Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews

#45

Post by withinboredom »

mikkupikku wrote: post #11
hodgehog11 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking this too, but I don't believe this is the case, and I feel like it would not be a good idea either. Most of these people are likely students; this should be a learning moment, but I don't think it is yet grounds for their entire academic career to be crippled by being unable to publish in a top-tier ML venue.

If this is tolerated, it sends exactly the wrong kind of message. The students, if they are, should be banned for life. Let them serve as an example for myriads of future students, this will be a better outcome in the long run. This didn't trip for people who were merely bouncing ideas off a LLM, they caught people who copy and pasted straight from their LLM.

> The students, if they are, should be banned for life.

I'm all for repurcussions ... but a life is a long time and students are usually only at the beginning of it.

Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews

#46

Post by qbit42 »

quinndupont wrote: post #39
mikkupikku wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, I hope these frauds have been banned for life.

It’s an unethical, false choice. The reviewers are not perfectly rational agents that do free work, they have real needs and desires. Shame on ICML for exploiting their desperation.

Banned for life is a stretch but the actual response is completely fine. They can just resubmit to the next conference.

Words mean something, if you promise to uphold a contract and break it, there are consequences. The reviewers were free to select the policy which allows LLM use.

Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews

#47

Post by aledevv »

Great experiment!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this means that many people are using LLMs despite claiming not to.

It's the first symptom of a dependency mechanism.

If this happens in this context, who knows what happens in normal work or school environments?

(P.S.: The use of watermarks in PDFs to detect LLM usage is very interesting, even though the LLM might ignore hidden instructions.)

Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews

#48

Post by qbit42 »

quinndupont wrote: post #38

How is nobody considering the broader political economy of scholarly publications and reviews? These are UNPAID reviews! Sure, maybe ICML isn’t Elsevier, but they are cousins to the socially parasitic and exploitative companies, at the very least. Hiding behind a false “choice” to not use AI or basically not use AI isn’t an appropriate proposal. This is crooked and shameful. We should boycott ICML except we can’t bec…

What? Why is that a false choice? The only way you got caught here is if you literally gave an LLM the PDF and used its response verbatim.

And they didn't give a permanent ban or anything, these authors can just resubmit to another conference, of which there are many.

Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews

#49

Post by Lerc »

I have heard people say that they find that people who broadcast their distaste for LLMs secretly use it. I was fairly sceptical of the claim, but this seems to suggest that it happens more than I would have thought.

One wonders what leads them to the AI rejecting option in the first place.

Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews

#50

Post by jacquesm »

manbash wrote: post #42
jacquesm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a very simple solution to this but it is a bit expensive. I run two laptops, one that I talk to an LLM on and another where I do all my work and which is my main machine. The LLM is strictly there in a consulting role, I've done some coding experiments as well (see previous comments) but nothing that stood out to me as a major improvement. The trick is: I can't cut-and-paste between the two machines. So there…

This somewhat of the equivalent of "quitting cold turkey", in the sense that you remove the temptation from your reach. The problem is that it's just much easier to un-quit and run the LLM in the same laptop you work on. It's just so very tempting.

I think that's the only way to deal with such temptations. Kidding yourself that you are strong enough to do it 'just once' or that you can handle the temptation is foolish and will only lead to predictable outcomes. I have a similar policy to smoking, drugs, alcohol and so on, I just don't want the temptation. It helps to have seen lots of people who thought they were smart enough eventually go under (but the price is pretty high).

Oh, and LLMs are of course geared to pull you in further, they are on a continuous upsell salespitch. Drug pushers could learn a thing or two from them.

Post reply on HN