Debate over AI peer review: AI reviews may beat average human reviewers
jmschreiber91 · x · 2026-10-29
A debate on AI in peer review. jmschreiber91 pushes back on anshulkundaje, arguing the distinction between fully AI and AI-assisted review matters: if you're asked to review a paper and just run it through Claude, that's borderline dishonest — journals might as well offer auto-reviews themselves.
In the quoted post, anshulkundaje disagrees: on average an AI-generated review will be better than one from the average reviewer, especially in esoteric or cross-disciplinary areas. But he agrees the better practice is reading the paper and writing your own review first, then augmenting it with AI.
More from AGI Musings
- Discord opens public server messages to Google search this November, feeding AI models — daluoseo · 2026-10-30
- Thomson Reuters Research Lead Rounds Up Media Coverage: Who Governs AI Matters as Much as Capability — schwarzjn_ · 2026-10-30
- Musk: Neuralink aims to reroute brain signals to let paralyzed people walk within years — elonmusk · 2026-10-30
- New article on scaling intelligence dives into the artist-AI startup collaboration controversy — charles_irl · 2026-10-30
- AI's generational founders are world builders, not empire conquerors — annbordetsky · 2026-10-30
- Jay Kreps: '1000x smarter than humans' is a crutch we no longer need — JosephJacks_ · 2026-10-30