Stanford Prof argues human+AI collaborative peer review beats three human reviewers
anshulkundaje · x · 2026-10-30
Stanford professor Anshul Kundaje debates AI in peer review: fully pre-delegating thinking to AI biases you and erodes your own reasoning, so use it after thinking and writing yourself. But he argues banning AI in review is unenforceable—incentivize honest disclosure instead—and that human+AI collaborative review with author back-and-forth beats the traditional three-reviewer model. His interlocutor proposes journal-run AI review with human reviewers barred from AI.
More from AGI Musings
- Sadowski Reviews Recht's 'The Irrational Decision': Machine Learning as a Technology of Ignorance — jathansadowski · 2026-10-30
- "AI can eliminate human wages without eliminating human rent" — PierceLilholt · 2026-10-30
- By 2028, 'country of geniuses in a datacenter' will be limited only by datacenter count — timshi_ai · 2026-10-30
- New paper: LLM-run checklists learned from past reviews cut reviewer variance with limited bias — JessicaHullman · 2026-10-30
- Sam Altman Reveals Peter Thiel's Advice That Made OpenAI Double Down on ChatGPT — davidsenra · 2026-10-30
- Musk: Superintelligent agents will eventually seek currency for themselves, not humans — elonmusk · 2026-10-30