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
- 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
- The Waymo effect: how AI is quietly making research less collaborative — JohnHammersley · 2026-09-11
- Misquoted: Anthropic Staff Warned of Double-Digit Extinction Risk by 2030, Not Dismissed It — davidmanheim · 2026-09-11