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: AI in Academic Peer Review Sparks Debate Over Efficiency and Standards(9 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Sam Altman says the modern corporation, not technology, was the Industrial Revolution’s key invention — garrytan · 2026-07-26
- Why entity mapping works for Google but not for a model’s parametric memory — steveplunkett · 2026-07-26
- The real AI jobs question is which work still needs human judgment and ethics — AryHHAry · 2026-07-26
- AI agents could overwhelm public infrastructure, says Yacine MTB — yacineMTB · 2026-07-26
- Gaudí’s upside-down church offers a vivid explanation of backpropagation — theteknosaur · 2026-07-26
- A Tim Bresnahan talk says coordination frictions may slow AI’s scientific diffusion — JMateosGarcia · 2026-07-26