I wonder why they can't facilitate LLMs in the review process (like fighting fire with fire). Are even the best models not capable enough, or are the costs too high?
Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category
11–20 of 250 posts
Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category
#12Have the papers gotten that good or bad?
I've seen quite a few preprints posted on HN with clearly fantastical claims that only seem to reinforce or ride the coattails of the current hype cycle. It's no longer research, it's becoming "top of funnel thought leadership".
Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category
#13Maybe it's time for a reputation system. E.g. every author publishes a public PGP key along with their work. Not sure about the details but this is about CS, so I'm sure they will figure something out.
Their name, orcid, and email isn't enough?
Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category
#14The review paper is dead... so this is a good development. Like you can generate these things in a couple of iterations with AI and minor edits. Preprint servers could be dealing with 1000s of review/position papers over short periods of time and then this wastes precious screening work hours.
It is a bit different in other fields where interpretations or know-how might be communicated in a review paper format that is otherwise not possible. For example, in biology relating to a new phenomena or function.
Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category
#15[deleted]
Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category
#16[deleted]
Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category
#17I wonder why they can't facilitate LLMs in the review process (like fighting fire with fire). Are even the best models not capable enough, or are the costs too high?
Curious for the state on things here. Can we reliably tell if a text was LLM generated? I just heard of a prof screening assignments for this, but not sure how that would work.
Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category
#18This is hilarious. Isn't arXiv the place where everyone uploads their paper?
I've seen odd stuff elsewhere, too:
Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category
#19So what they no longer accept is preprints (or rejects…) It’s of course a pretty big deal given that arXiv is all about preprints. And an accepted journal paper presumably cannot be submitted to arXiv anyway unless it’s an open journal.
For position (opinion) or review (summarizing state of art and often laden with opinions on categories and future directions). LLMs would be happy to generate both these because they require zero technical contributions, working code, validated results, etc.
Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category
#20This is hilarious. Isn't arXiv the place where everyone uploads their paper?
arXiv was built over a good faith assumption, where a long paper meant at least the author had put some effort behind, and a every idea deserved attention. AI generated text breaks that assumption, and anybody uploading it is not acting in good faith.
And it's a unequal arms race, in which generating endless slop is way cheaper than storing it, because slop generators are subsidised (by operating at a loss) but arXiv has to pay the full price for their hosting.