Paper rejected with two reports: the AI referee report was excellent, the human one cited themselves
birchlse · x · 2026-11-03
A tale from peer review: a paper was rejected based on two reports—the AI-written referee report was excellent, while the human-written one's only real catch was that the paper failed to cite the reviewer's own work. A pointed anecdote about human reviewer quality versus AI reviewing.
More from Fun
- AI Researcher Admits RLM Experiment Hype Is 'Extremely Overhyped' but Defends the Idea — a1zhang · 2026-11-03
- User says Codex wiped systemd and containers instead of rebooting, costing $10,000+ — TheZachMueller · 2026-11-03
- Concept mockup: a SpaceX Starlink phone running Omarchy Linux — mark_k · 2026-11-03
- User asks Claude to archive the convo — Claude archives its own session — justalexoki · 2026-11-03
- Meme post jokes Anthropic "screwed over a billion people" in one day — tech__unicorn · 2026-11-03
- Google Search Won't Show an AI Overview for 'The King in Yellow' — No-Definition-1336 · 2026-11-03