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

Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

blog.arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 250 posts

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#31

Post by marcosdumay »

DalasNoin wrote: post #10

it's clearly not sutainable to have the main website hosting CS articles not having any reviews or restrictions. (Except for the initial invite system) There were 26k submission in october: https://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions Asking for a small amount of money would probably help. Issue with requiring peer reviewed journals or conferences is the severe lag, takes a long time and part of the advantage of arxiv…

A small payment is probably better than what they are doing. But we must eventually solve the LLM issue, probably by punishing the people that use them instead of the entire public.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#32

Post by physarum_salad »

awestroke wrote: post #24
physarum_salad wrote: post #14

The 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 i…

A good review paper is infinitely better than an llm managing to find a few papers and making a summary. A knowledgeable researcher knows which papers are outdated and can make a trustworthy review paper, an LLM can't easily do that yet

Ok I take your point. However, it is possible to generate a middling review paper combining ai generated slop and edits. Maybe we would be tricked by it in certain circumstances. I don't mean to imply these outputs are something I would value reading. I am just arguing in favour of the proposed approach of arXiv.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#36

Post by caymanjim »

SoftTalker wrote: post #26
amelius wrote: post #8

Maybe 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.

People are already putting their names on the LLM slop, why would they hesitate to PGP-sign it?

They've also been putting their names on their grad students' work for eternity as well. It's not like the person whose name is at the top actually writes the paper.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#37

Post by sfpotter »

mottiden wrote: post #33

I understand their reasoning, but it’s terrible for the CS community not being able to access pre-prints. I hope that a solution can be found.

Please, read the title and the article carefully. That isn't what's happening.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#38

Post by bee_rider »

physarum_salad wrote: post #14

The 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 i…

What are review papers for anyway? I think they are either for

1) new grad students to end up with something nice to publish after reviewing the literature or,

2) older professors to write a big overview of everything that happened in their field as sort of a “bible” that can get you up to speed

The former is useful as a social construct; I mean, hey, new grad students, don’t skimp on your literature review. Finding out a couple years in that folks had already done something sorta similar to my work was absolutely gut-wrenching.

For the latter, I don’t think LLMs are quite ready to replace the personal experiences of a late-career professor, right?

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#39

Post by physarum_salad »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21
physarum_salad wrote: post #14

The 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 i…

> you can generate these things in a couple of iterations with AI The problem is you can’t. Not without careful review of the output. (Certainly not if you’re writing about anything remotely novel and thus useful.) But not everyone knows that, which turns private ignorance into a public review problem.

Are review papers centred on novel research? I get what you mean ofc but most are really mundane overviews. In good review papers the authors offer novel interpretations/directions but even then it involves a lot of grunt work too.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#40

Post by jvanderbot »

caymanjim wrote: post #36
SoftTalker wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are already putting their names on the LLM slop, why would they hesitate to PGP-sign it?

They've also been putting their names on their grad students' work for eternity as well. It's not like the person whose name is at the top actually writes the paper.

Not reviewing an upload which turns out to be LLM slop is precisely the kind of thing you want to track with a reputation system
Post reply on HN