IMHO (not a paper writer, but read a lot during my grad school years), the Genie is out of the bottle. The only way forward, as I see it, is using LLMs for reviews also. Basically, filter all submitted papers with an LLM and ask it to summarize it, find the biggest weaknesses and main strong points, etc. that a human can then use to review the paper. Basically, LLM-as-a-reviewer .
Personally, I would love to see a conference where people are explicitly encouraged to use LLMs for doing the work and writing the papers, and LLMs are used to review them too.
This already happens. It's clear when a reviewer used an LLM, and it's very annoying for the authors that have to respond to what are usually low quality, superficial reviews.
"low quality, superficial reviews" have always been around. Reviewing is most often an unpaid, thankless job and many times reviewers barely put in the effort.
There is still a difference. Previously, if the review was low quality and superficial, it was also quite short and easy to answer. Now I receive fully LLM-written reviews of 2-3 pages (or more) of superficial comments asking for tons of additional text and experiments that are almost always outside the scope of the work. Answering such a review requires a lot of work with absolutely no gain.
I hear you. I just happened to submit a paper to Neurips this year, and the "reviewer" sent back so many questions, etc. that the character limit of the response could never accomodate my response. So I just addressed a few of the main points and called it a day.
I am sure an LLM review could be made much shorter with some prompting.
The character limit thing is real. Another problem is that even if you manage to address all of their points, they're not required to engage with that. They can just ask the LLM to write a basic response back and say they won't change the score.
Similar experience to sibling: a disinterested human isn't going to ask for 30 different detailed things to add to, or change in, the paper that could technically be improved but aren't worth the additional page real estate. An LLM reviewer definitely does this.
mlmonkey · · focus · HN ↗
Personally, I would love to see a conference where people are explicitly encouraged to use LLMs for doing the work and writing the papers, and LLMs are used to review them too.
maleldil · · focus · HN ↗
mlmonkey · · focus · HN ↗
"low quality, superficial reviews" have always been around. Reviewing is most often an unpaid, thankless job and many times reviewers barely put in the effort.
__lm__ · · focus · HN ↗
mlmonkey · · focus · HN ↗
I am sure an LLM review could be made much shorter with some prompting.
maleldil · · focus · HN ↗
tomsmeding · · focus · HN ↗