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.
Related event: Scholars Debate Zero-Tolerance on AI-Written Papers(10 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- New paper: AI exposure has no effect on youth unemployment, remote work does — soumitrashukla9 · 2026-09-24
- 'Model X has won' claims keep repeating, investors say the AI race is still early — whurley · 2026-09-24
- Agent-powered attacks end 'don't be the slowest' security: the 24-hour patch window — dbasch · 2026-09-24
- AI art should steal Adobe's playbook: democratize Hollywood-grade creation, not content — wordgrammer · 2026-09-24
- Dev likens AI safety movement to a crime-free Lex Luthor — NathanpmYoung · 2026-09-24
- Investor Says Manufacturing Labor Shortage Will Hit 5-6M, Far Above Deloitte's 3M Forecast — MatthewChang · 2026-09-24