A debate over AI review: correctness is not the whole story
RexDouglass · x · 2026-07-26
The thread argues that judging AI-generated work is not just about correctness.
One side says checking a proof for flaws is only part of review; the other emphasizes that “interestingness” still matters in some fields. The exchange frames a broader debate about what counts as good work when AI tools are involved: simply being correct may not be enough if the output is not novel, useful, or worth reviewing in the first place.
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