ICLR reviews flagged 91-93% AI-generated, sparking peer review integrity debate
3scorciav · x · 2026-11-07
- A researcher reports that 3 ICLR reviews he received scored 91%, 93% and 91% AI-generated per Pangram — one was essentially a Claude copy-paste with only the most elementary nitpicks, which he calls insulting to authors doing honest work.
- Damien Sorrow quote-RTs arguing the community underestimates GenAI's impact on conferences, but counters that tools and incentives aren't to blame: the real problem is people (reviewers) not doing their job.
- The exchange fuels ongoing debate over generative AI eroding peer review quality at ML conferences.
More from AGI Musings
- Ranking sci-fi's AI predictions: Ted Chiang's 'Lifecycle of Software Objects' comes first — _akpiper · 2026-11-07
- Gladstone AI CEO: Washington won't slow AI until an 'AI Chernobyl' strikes — AaronBergman18 · 2026-11-07
- Bloomington, Indiana passes first law in history banning superintelligence, 7-0 — DavidSKrueger · 2026-11-07
- The six-step power-seeking AI x-risk argument, broken down for credence calibration — AndyMasley · 2026-11-07
- Silicon Valley's AI encryption finale hits different 7 years later — Hesamation · 2026-11-07
- Dean Ball: frontier agents will master the physical world soon, no specialist models — deanwball · 2026-11-07