Over 2/3 of paper reviews in the past year were obviously AI-generated, says NLP researcher
bclavie · x · 2026-09-20
NLP practitioner bclavie claims that over the past year more than two-thirds of paper reviews at some institutions were obviously AI-generated with little human input. Because institutions mandate quotas of Corr A/A papers, authors now pre-emptively placate AI-written review complaints, which materially boosts acceptance odds — a game he says they're forced to play. He adds that post-iteration papers are often worse than the original drafts. Quoted skeptic @idansc argues iterating with GPT still can't guarantee novelty or gains over baselines, which reviewers check first.
Related event: Insider Says Over Two-Thirds of Peer Reviews at One Lab Are AI-Generated(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Narayanan, Kapoor, Bommasani launch STABL to bridge polarized AI debate — RishiBommasani · 2026-11-12
- OpenAI, Anthropic and DeepMind job posts signal PMs must write evals and code — aakashgupta · 2026-11-12
- Architecture study sparks monitoring concerns over a multi-hop planning spike — ChowdhuryNeil · 2026-11-12
- PowerShell creator Jeffrey Snover at Ignite: AI revolution is an extinction event for those who don't adapt — dfinke · 2026-11-12
- Worst AI use: signaling you don't care about things you should — Afinetheorem · 2026-11-12
- Stanford HAI blueprint: 56 US agencies report 3,611 AI use cases, evaluation lags — StanfordHAI · 2026-11-12