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.
The entire point of an academic paper is to add to the sum of human knowledge. How can an LLM trained on a subset of human knowledge possibly even begin to accurate evaluate such a paper?
I trust an LLM to review that the language used in the paper is grammatically correct, but not to evaluate new information for accuracy.
Schmidthuber has an answer: <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4360" rel="nofollow">https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4360
For a more practical approach you need to use proxies: <a href="https://zby.github.io/commonplace/articles/what-an-automated-reviewer-should-measure/" rel="nofollow">https://zby.github.io/commonplace/articles/what-an-automated...
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.
pwinnski · · focus · HN ↗
I trust an LLM to review that the language used in the paper is grammatically correct, but not to evaluate new information for accuracy.
zbyforgotp · · focus · HN ↗
For a more practical approach you need to use proxies: <a href="https://zby.github.io/commonplace/articles/what-an-automated-reviewer-should-measure/" rel="nofollow">https://zby.github.io/commonplace/articles/what-an-automated...