Thread

1. coderintherye · 1790711081 · focus · HN ↗

   If AI submissions, then why not go a step further and have AI reviewers?

   Perhaps this will help bring more scrutiny to the metric of publishing quantity not being as valuable as it has been treated.

   1. canjobear · 1790711192 · focus · HN ↗

      In practice this already happens, unfortunately.

      1. guywithahat · 1790712478 · focus · HN ↗

         Why is it unfortunate? We should absolutely use AI reviewers to help catch errors and fact check papers

         1. jruohonen · 1790713251 · focus · HN ↗

            > Why is it unfortunate?

            If you only knew.

         2. hunterpayne · 1790717060 · focus · HN ↗

            Because the exact opposite will happen. The idea that allowing AI reviewers will increase accuracy is probably foolhardy. People being people will get lazy and review less by hand if at all. And the LLMs will miss plenty of things. Then those papers will get into the training sets for the next LLMs. I think you can see where this goes overtime.

            1. hodgehog11 · 1790719137 · focus · HN ↗

               The issue is generally not accuracy in my experience (humans are even lazier about this). The issue is that LLMs do not understand what is interesting and what is procedural.
            2. augment_me · 1790727767 · focus · HN ↗

               What's the incentive or practical way to stop this? There is no incentive from anyone.

               Journals get less money from less submissions, conferences get less money from less submissions, manual reviewing takes more time which decreases the time you can spend generating papers yourself, less submissions means less acceptance means less funding grants.

               The only possible thing is some idealistic demogogue take that knowledge will get diluted, it will be bad for humanity, etc, which moves the needle exactly 0 in a capitalist society with our incentives.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.