Reviewers should verify correctness, not AI authorship — Pangram won't get us there
ipeirotis · x · 2026-09-24
NYU professor ipeirotis argues peer review should solve for correctness first: he would gladly review only technically correct papers and focus on judging interestingness. He doesn't care whether a technically correct paper is AI-written as long as its claims are verified — and claims AI-detection tools like Pangram won't get us there.
More from AGI Musings
- Investor: AI diffusion will be slowest in consumer software — Oura, Strava, Labcorp still have no real AI strategy — MartinGTobias · 2026-11-12
- On AI Progress: When Models Lag on Your Load-Bearing Skill, You Can't See Them Improving — dfrsrchtwts · 2026-11-12
- Slack's David Hoang: agents beat people on coordination, proposes 'boundary agents' — davidhoang · 2026-11-12
- CS student mourns coding flow states he'll never experience in the AI era — chrissyykat · 2026-11-12
- Ford's 370% Turnover Led to $5 Days — But ASI Never Quits — krishnan · 2026-11-12
- Against 'verifiable vs. fuzzy': the real axis is how expensive tasks are to grade — dfrsrchtwts · 2026-11-12