Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
1–10 of 140 posts
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#2My initial reaction was: Oh no, who would have thought? But then... 21% is almost shockingly low. Especially given that there are almost certainly some false positive, given that this number originates with a company selling "detecting AI generated text"
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#3> Controversy has erupted after 21% of manuscript reviews for an international AI conference were found to be generated by artificial intelligence.
21%...? Am I reading it right? I bet no one expected it's so low when they clicked this title.
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#4Shouldn't AIs be able to participate in deciding their future?
If they had a conference on, say, the Americans, wouldn't it be fair for Americans to have a seat at the table?
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#5Automated AI detection tools do not work. This whole article is premised on an analysis by someone trying to sell their garbage product.
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#6While I think there's significant AI "offloading" in writing, the article's methodology relies on "AI-detectors," which reads like PR for Pangram. I don't need to explain why AI detectors are mostly bullshit and harmful for people who have never used LLMs. [1]
1: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#7AI research is interesting, but AI Slop is the monetising factor.
It's inevitable that faces will be devoured by AI Leopards.
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#8The claim "written by AI" is not really substantiated here, and as someone who's been accused of submitting AI-generated content repeatedly recently, while that was all honestly stuff I wrote myself (hey, what can I say? I just like EM-dashes...), I sort-of sympathize?
Yes, AI slop is an issue. But throwing more AI at detecting this, and most importantly, not weighing that detection properly, is an even bigger problem.
And, HN-wise, "this seems like AI" seems like a very good inclusion in the "things not to complain about" FAQ. Address the idea, not the form of the message, and if it's obviously slop (or SEO, or self-promotion), just downvote (or ignore) and move on...
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#9The claim "written by AI" is not really substantiated here, and as someone who's been accused of submitting AI-generated content repeatedly recently, while that was all honestly stuff I wrote myself (hey, what can I say? I just like EM-dashes...), I sort-of sympathize? Yes, AI slop is an issue. But throwing more AI at detecting this, and most importantly, not weighing that detection properly, is an even bigger proble…
Banning calling out AI slop hardly seems like an improvement
Re: Major AI conference flooded with peer reviews written by AI
#10Automated AI detection tools do not work. This whole article is premised on an analysis by someone trying to sell their garbage product.
Yeah that is the premise all of these articles/tools just conveniently brush off. “We detected that x%… “ OK, and how do I know ur detectiok algorithm is right?