Researchers worry papers and meta-reviews are both getting AI-written
fredahshi · x · 2026-07-22
The quoted post says the author often ends up writing human-authored meta-reviews for papers that were themselves mostly AI-reviewed, and many may have also been partially AI-written.
They mention seeing a lot of 100% AI scores on Pangram and say the situation feels demoralizing, even if AI can clearly help in research.
The main point is not that AI use in research is inherently bad, but that the community should openly discuss what happens when:
- papers are increasingly AI-assisted
- reviews are also AI-assisted
- authors and reviewers are both using AI tools in hidden ways
The post frames this as a broader conversation about research norms rather than a solved problem.
More from AGI Musings
- Instinct launches agent-to-agent protocol to coordinate your plans, sparking 'friction is the point' backlash — itsOmSarraf_ · 2026-09-11
- We are witnessing the unreasonable effectiveness of inference-time scaling — sqcai · 2026-09-11
- Accelerationist fires back at AI doomers: beliefs aren't arguments — Dan_Jeffries1 · 2026-09-11
- "ChatGPT 6 Makes Workers with IQ Below 130 Useless": French AI Debate Sparks Backlash — mitchdeg · 2026-09-11
- 'AGI is here' vs reality: AI labs still ship some of the jankiest desktop apps ever — MilesCranmer · 2026-09-11
- Harry Collins: LLMs can't do frontier science because they can't invent new language — whoamisri · 2026-09-11