Over 2/3 of a Lab's Paper Reviews Last Year Were Obviously AI-Generated
bclavie · x · 2026-09-20
bclavie reports that at a certain research lab, over two-thirds of paper reviews in the past year were obviously AI-generated with little human input — even though he considers the researchers bright with great careers ahead. He also finds the post-iteration papers worse than the original drafts. He jokes the abbreviation should change from CORR to CORE, capturing concerns about AI-generated text degrading academic output quality.
Related event: Insider Says Over Two-Thirds of Peer Reviews at One Lab Are AI-Generated(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Former AI safety skeptic: the 'preposterous' predictions are already coming true — dan_s_becker · 2026-09-20
- "Four Rivers of Computing": a personal syllabus for stealing pioneers' moves — threepointone · 2026-09-20
- Millennium problems become 'low-hanging fruit' once AI solves them, author laments — haider1 · 2026-09-20
- Schmidhuber: rename AI back to Cybernetics — deep learning is closer to Wiener's tradition — SchmidhuberAI · 2026-09-20
- ICLR 2027 hits 60,000+ submissions, nearly 90% possibly AI-written — DominiqueCAPaul · 2026-09-20
- ML researcher: the whole point of AI is general intelligence that solves all human problems — cloneofsimo · 2026-09-20