AI can check correctness, but still struggles to judge whether research is interesting
AvivTamar1 · x · 2026-07-26
The reply argues that checking correctness is only one part of peer review, and that AI still is not good enough at judging interestingness, at least in that author's field.
It is a small but substantive take on where AI-assisted reviewing still falls short: not just spotting errors, but evaluating whether work is actually worth reading.
Related event: Debate Erupts Over AI Peer Review and Academic Standards(9 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- GiveDirectly pilots an optional AI chatbot alongside cash aid in Rwanda — NathanpmYoung · 2026-10-27
- Ex-Anthropic employee essay: the org optimizes for power 'constrained by being seen as the good guys' — RichardMCNgo · 2026-10-27
- Investor: model version numbers are a mirage, only datacenter margins are real — StewartalsopIII · 2026-10-27
- WSJ Op-Ed: For Anthropic Share Offering Investors, a 10% Extinction Chance May Be a 90% Portfolio Win — davidmanheim · 2026-10-27
- WSJ: for Anthropic investors, a 10% extinction chance may still be a 90% portfolio win — peterwildeford · 2026-10-27
- Simile, the AI human-simulation startup, raises $300M+ at $2B valuation with 85%+ behavior prediction — joon_s_pk · 2026-10-27