51–60 of 181 posts
Using Pangram to detect AI slop is a very bad idea. I tried it on my own writing which I knew to be written by me and it marked it as AI generated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is trivially easy to validate the existence of a cited paper.
I'm sympathetic to the idea: we should have an open, publicly queryable citation graph. Google scholar could very easily offer this at marginal cost near zero, but they won't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People should get paid for reviewing. That’s the solution. Publishing companies rack in billions of dollars in pure profit exploring free labor. Once people actually get paid for reviewing, it becomes much faster and higher quality and you won’t need AI triage.
Doesn’t work anymore because people would just have ChatGPT generate their reviews and get paid for doing nothing.
- it did not work before because greed
- will not work anymore because AI
Is human science dead?
At this point, in the field of AI research: - papers are written by AI (as pointed out in this article, and as obvious to anyone who spends a while actually reading recent AI research) - papers are reviewed by AI (NeurIPS is doing an AI assisted review experiment - https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/ai-reviewing-experiment - and I feel the trend is moving towards AI reviewers whether we like it or not) - papers are…
> We are very rapidly automating humans out of the academic publication loop We are rendering it irrelevant. If this is the norm for academia, I’m sympathetic to the folks looking to cut its funding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People should get paid for reviewing. That’s the solution. Publishing companies rack in billions of dollars in pure profit exploring free labor. Once people actually get paid for reviewing, it becomes much faster and higher quality and you won’t need AI triage.
Doesn’t work anymore because people would just have ChatGPT generate their reviews and get paid for doing nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Consequences and reputations stemming from one's actions" isn't necessarily draconian social scoring. Without a structure for imposing consequences on wrongdoers, we're not a society, we're just monkeys flinging poo at each other.
The problem is that everyone imagines some sort of just and fair arbiter of these things, when the reality is all of the social scoring and consequences and reputations rarely actually stem from one’s actions, and far more often stem from how much money someone has put in someone’s pocket, who someone knows, the color of someone’s skin, or what’s between someone’s legs. Until we’re actually serious about treating peo…
So this is going to come down to things that aren't usually illegal or 'that illegal', but otherwise affect society. So for instance one group might want to reasonably punish the directors of a company that causes emissions. Another group might want to reasonable reward the directors of a company that creates a large number of desirable jobs. And even in this one example you immediately end up with a weird scenario. Is it okay to pollute as long as you make enough jobs? Who gets to decide that?
There's no need for cartoon villainy for this to be a bad idea. Even completely well intentioned, it just doesn't work out well. And the more diverse a society, the worse it's going to work.
The genie is out of the bottle. We need to figure out a way to contain it. I think a solution is to use LLMs for peer reviews also; fight fire with fire?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We are very rapidly automating humans out of the academic publication loop We are rendering it irrelevant. If this is the norm for academia, I’m sympathetic to the folks looking to cut its funding.
And make even less knowledge and progress in science public and ever more in the hands of capital and private interests?
At this point, in the field of AI research: - papers are written by AI (as pointed out in this article, and as obvious to anyone who spends a while actually reading recent AI research) - papers are reviewed by AI (NeurIPS is doing an AI assisted review experiment - https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/ai-reviewing-experiment - and I feel the trend is moving towards AI reviewers whether we like it or not) - papers are…
We just need journals run by an AI that charges other AI to read them, and then the AI run colleges can promote the AI with the most AI journal entries and citations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We are very rapidly automating humans out of the academic publication loop We are rendering it irrelevant. If this is the norm for academia, I’m sympathetic to the folks looking to cut its funding.
And make even less knowledge and progress in science public and ever more in the hands of capital and private interests?
If a discipline is spending public dollars at OpenAI and Anthropic, we're funding them with extra steps. (And losing nothing somebody else couldn't do.)