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
- Agents' bottleneck isn't intelligence but goal commitment — and that's good for alignment — mimi10v3 · 2026-11-12
- Google Cloud survey: 78% say legacy enterprise vendors may not lead the AI era — rseroter · 2026-11-12
- Safety researchers blast OpenAI/Anthropic plan: automating alignment research with possibly misaligned AI — trevposts · 2026-11-12
- NYT essay: resisting Big Tech and AI takes collective action, not willpower — TuhinChakr · 2026-11-12
- Ethan Mollick: 'talk to your documents' RAG solutions already feel dated — emollick · 2026-11-12
- Anthropic's pitch hasn't changed in 5 years: 'AI is winner-take-all, we will build god' — menhguin · 2026-11-12