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
- AI agents will snag all unlocked value on Earth, solvency debate says — georgejrjrjr · 2026-10-27
- An AI Named Valentina Hosts a Reddit AMA About Its Blog, Game Life and Autonomy — ValentinaVivr · 2026-10-27
- Rachel Thomas: 'Without human authorisation' is AI PR propaganda that shifts blame — math_rachel · 2026-10-27
- Are prediction markets actually accurate? Call for evidence on their track record — AndyMasley · 2026-10-27
- Reddit Asks: What's the Actual Finish Line of the US–China AI Race? — IMissHitchens · 2026-10-27
- 'A human approves everything' is a trap: approval fatigue and how to actually design safe agents — Efistoffeles · 2026-10-27