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. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.