Stanford professor argues AI should aid peer review, blind spots remain for human experts
anshulkundaje · x · 2026-10-19
Stanford genomics professor Anshul Kundaje argues that comments from three reviewers picked by a single editor cannot match the coverage of thousands of experts with diverse backgrounds. He also criticizes journals that bar reviewers from using AI, saying AI is undeniably useful for covering blind spots that even expert human reviewers miss.
More from AGI Musings
- Economists clash on AI productivity: why labor productivity beats noisy TFP right now — danielrock · 2026-10-19
- Ethan Mollick: don't give agents your bank account, but secure design beats bans — emollick · 2026-10-19
- "Neither the best nor worst AI outcome appeals to me": a melancholy middle view — birchlse · 2026-10-19
- The web is walling off AI agents: Amazon, Yelp, Cloudflare all block bots that skip ads — alex_verem · 2026-10-19
- OpenMined founder: information-aggregating tech centralizes before federating, and AGI may follow — iamtrask · 2026-10-19
- Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark: convincing evidence the Singularity has begun — kimmonismus · 2026-10-19