Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.icml.cc

171–172 of 172 posts

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

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rejection is based on the dishonesty of explicitly committing to standard A and then knowingly violating it, not on LLM use as such. I think that's pretty fair, considering that everyone could have just chosen B if they wanted to.

Sure, I'm just pointing out that the 2% headline figure is very conservative if not misleading as a far greater unknown number in group B will have done exactly the same (which I doubt ICML or those submitting papers actually want). This is probably a first step in clamping down on anyone doing this.

Oh, I misread your post - that's fair!

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

#172
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the field. One of the most influential papers in economics was found to be incorrectly constructed with signs pointing to just straight up fraud. Basically it didn't include data that it said it did, which when included reverses the conclusion. Then when the authors were called out, they doubled down offering up the explanation that the conclusion again reverses if you add a third set of cherry picked data…

All due respect this is by no means one of the most influential papers in economics.

Not influential on economics research, but on economic policy.
Post reply on HN