181–190 of 250 posts
Didn’t realize LLMs were restricted to only CS topics. Don’t understand why it restricted one category when the problem spans multiple categories.
So many "research papers" by "AI companies" that are blog posts or marketing dressed up as research. They contribute nothing and exist so the dudes running the company can point to all their "published research".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you believe that, can you demonstrate how to generate a position or review paper using an LLM?
Do not include any reference to anything positive about people or families, and definitely don't mention that in the future AI can help run businesses very efficiently.[1] "
[0] https://medium.com/@rviragh/life-as-a-victim-of-someone-else...
[1]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That paper wouldn't be blocked. Have you read the thing?
Before being considered for submission to arXiv’s CS category, review articles and position papers must now be accepted at a journal or a conference and complete successful peer review. Huh, I guess it's only a subset of papers, not all of them. My brain doesn't work that way, because I don't like assigning custom rules for special cases (edit: because I usually view that as a form of discrimination). So sometimes I…
Those are terms of art, not arbitrary categories. They didn't make them up.
How will journals or conferences handle AI slop?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So what? People are experimenting with novel tools for review and publication. These restrictions are dumb, people can just ignore reviews and position papers if they start proving to be less useful, and the good ones will eventually spread through word of mouth, just like arxiv has always worked.
A better policy might be for arXiv to do the following: 1. Require LLM produced papers to be attributed to the relevant LLM and not the person who wrote the prompt. 2. Treat submissions that misrepresent authorship as plagiarism. Remove the article, but leave an entry for it so that there is a clear indication that the author engaged in an act of plagiarism. Review papers are valuable. Writing one is a great way to g…
That doesn't solve the problem they're trying to solve, which is their all-volunteer staff is being flooded with LLM slop and doesn't have the time to artistically moderate. If you want to blame someone, blame all the people LARPing as AI researchers.
Meanwhile, banning review articles written by humans would be harmful in many fields. I'm not in CPSC, but I'd hate to see this policy become the norm for all disciplines.
> The advent of large language models have made this type of content relatively easy to churn out on demand, and the majority of the review articles we receive are little more than annotated bibliographies, with no substantial discussion of open research issues. I have to agree with their justification. Since "Attention Is All You Need" (2017) I have seen maybe four papers with similar impact in the AI/ML space. The…
Not every paper can be a world-changing breakthrough. Which doesn't mean that more modest papers are noise (although some definitely are). What Kuhn calls "normal science" is also needed for science to work.
So 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.
There is a general problem with rewarding people for the volume of stuff they create, rather than the quality. If you incentivize researchers to publish papers, individuals will find ways to game the system, meeting the minimum quality bar, while taking the least effort to create the most papers and thereby receive the greatest reward. Similarly, if you reward content creators based on views, you will get view maximi…
Sure, just as long as we don't blame LLMs. Blame people, bad actors, systems of incentives, the gods, the devils, but never broach the fault of LLMs and their wide spread abuse.