Well deserved.
2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews
141–150 of 172 posts
Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because someone has to do it. Conference submissions have ballooned as the field itself has ballooned. Whats your suggestion?
It's better if nobody does it than to send it to the randomizer.
Ok but you need peer reviewed publications to graduate with a PhD.
And if you retort that the whole academic system is obsolete, well, it still carries a lot of prestige and legitimacy that makes politicians interested in maintaining it, so it's not going anywhere soon.
Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews
#143I think the real news from this experiment is that LLM usage is almost unavoidable even among high level professionals who are capable to and promised to do the task without LLMs. I don’t think these policies will be around in a few years. They are more like naive transition period attempts to stop a tsunami.
Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what experience anyone in this thread has with grad level research as a student/author, but I can assure you that heads roll over this kind of thing. A professor's career is built on reputation, and that reputation is as strong as their students' (who do much of the "work" such as it is). It comes down to the professor, but this can be a career-ending moment for those students and I'm quite confident the…
[flagged]
This has nothing to do with whether it is ok to use AI or not, it is about whether it is ok to lie about using it.
Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's not a fully consensus view, but a majority of sociologists agree that high severity deterrence has limited effectiveness against crime. Instead, certainty of enforcement is the most salient factor.
> Instead, certainty of enforcement is the most salient factor.
hodgehog11 is proposing effectively no enforcement
Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews
#146[dead]
Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with this. Usually the products are based on published research. This is not easily seen by the enthusiast power user base. Of course it's only a small fraction of all papers that end up actually being used. Most are mainly about advancing careers and strengthening CVs.
I have been in both academia and industry for years, and I don't think the model you describe is true anymore. It was definitely true 10 years ago, but the situation has flipped. Now, I see really ambitious and impactful research coming out of industry labs. Academia is often lagging behind the state of the art because they lack the resources (data, compute, and skills) to compete. Academia is also incentivized such…
I recently talked with a PI from a well-known university lab, and asked why they were doing a startup, given the ML research problems they were working on.
They said a company was the only way to get access to the compute power they needed for that research.
A startup sounds like probably a good solution, if they get paired with the right product- and business-minded people, and together they find a winning collaboration. (Edit: Or if they get acquired rapidly in the AI boom, and negotiate the right deal to enable their research longer-term.)
Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews
#148I really like how they approach to the detection. But I am worried that this is something the community can only use effectively once. There are too many ways to bypass this detection once you know how it works.
Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews
#149People in the comment asking for harsher punishment should note that we don’t know how many people selected the „I have no strong preference“ option and got assigned to group A randomly.
It’s a bit harder to make the argument that those people _explicitly_ agreed to not use LLMs.
And given how the desk-rejection logic relies on an ethical integrity argument, actual explicit intent is important.
Re: 2% of ICML papers desk rejected because the authors used LLM in their reviews
#150Took me a while understand. So, the same person has both submitted their research article to the conference, and also acted as a reviewer for articles submitted by other people. And if they in their review work have agreed to a "no LLM use" policy, but got exposed using LLMs anyway, then their submitted research article is desk rejected. Theoretically, someone could have submitted a stellar research article, but beca…
Slightly more nuanced in that the reciprocal reviewer may have been essentially forced to sign despite having other commitments or may not have even been the lead contributor. Nowadays if a student submits a side project to a top-tier conference then it is required that if any authors have significant publication count in top-tier venues, then one must be a mandatory reviewer. Then one must sign that agreement. Stude…
I keep not learning how corrupt authorship of academic papers is. When I read papers, I imagine all the authors have been working away together in an office somewhere and they all wrote parts of the paper and all read it and all have a feeling of ownership of it and deeply understand the whole thing. But I forget how the only academic paper I ever had published was one that I never read and had no understanding of. All I did was give some technician-like advice to the actual author. It feels dirty and I sometimes regret accepting it but at the same time, the whole science world seems like it doesn't deserve honesty because everyone else is corrupt too.