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.
maybe but as a paper writer, the quality of reviews and reviewers have gone down because of LLM-as-a-reviewer too, because LLM reviews seem to regurgitate the limitations section of the paper, and are highly influenced by the way things are phrased in the paper rather than the actual substance.
but I'm hopeful that some middle ground will be found in the future
I dunno man, I use LLM's to review things before I send them in and I often feel like I've been handcuffed to a chair, had a bright light shone in my face and had to account for all the mistakes I've made in my life.
Completely agree. I’ve had a Nature paper and a Nature Neuroscience paper published this year and the reviews from Opus were much more thorough and complete than those of the human reviewers. I still benefitted from the human reviewers, but now I consider an LLM review essential.
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.
amdivia · · focus · HN ↗
but I'm hopeful that some middle ground will be found in the future
sgt101 · · focus · HN ↗
They can be brutal.
robwwilliams · · focus · HN ↗