91–100 of 250 posts
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.
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.
I got that suggestion recently talking to a colleague from a prestigious university. Her suggestion was simple: Kick out all non-ivy league and most international researchers. Then you have a working reputation system. Make of that what you will ...
Why not just reject papers authored by LLMs and ban accounts that are caught? arXiv’s management has become really questionable lately, it’s like they’re trying to become a prestigious journal and are becoming the problem they were trying to solve in the first place
The HN submission title is incorrect. > 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. Edit: original title was "arXiv No Longer Accepts Computer Science Position or Review Papers Due to LLMs"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you can choose to not trust people that are part of citation rings.
It is a non trivial problem to do just that. It's related to the same problems you have with e.g. Sybil attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack I'm not saying it wouldn't be worthwhile to try, just that I expect there to be a lot of very difficult problems to solve there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What prevents you from creating an island of fake endorsers?
Unless you can be fooled into trusting a fake endorser, that island might just as well not exist.
Wouldn’t most people subscribe to a default set of trusted citers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you can be fooled into trusting a fake endorser, that island might just as well not exist.
> Unless you can be fooled into trusting a fake endorser Wouldn’t most people subscribe to a default set of trusted citers?
Why not just reject papers authored by LLMs and ban accounts that are caught? arXiv’s management has become really questionable lately, it’s like they’re trying to become a prestigious journal and are becoming the problem they were trying to solve in the first place
It’s articles (not papers) _about_ LLMs that are the problem, not papers written _by_ LLMs (although I imagine they are not mutually exclusive). Title is ambiguous.
No, not really. From the blog post:
> In the past few years, arXiv has been flooded with papers. Generative AI / large language models have added to this flood by making papers – especially papers not introducing new research results – fast and easy to write. While categories across arXiv have all seen a major increase in submissions, it’s particularly pronounced in arXiv’s CS category. > [...] > Fast forward to present day – submissions to arXiv in general have risen dramatically, and we now receive hundreds of review articles every month. 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.
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.
I had been kinda hoping for a web-of-trust system to replace peer review. Anyone can endorse an article. You can decide which endorsers you trust, and do some network math to find what you think is reading. With hashes and signatures and all that rot. Not as gate-keepy as journals and not as anarchic as purely open publishing. Should be cheap, too.