Are AI-written ICLR reviews OK? A nuanced take: discuss with AI for hours, then polish
algo_diver · x · 2026-11-09
An opinion post on AI use in ICLR peer review. The author argues that AI-assisted reviews don't necessarily mean "no human reviewers left": a reasonable workflow is spending a few hours discussing the paper with AI, writing the review comments yourself, then polishing them with AI. The post draws a line between AI ghostwriting and AI-assisted expression in academic reviewing.
More from AGI Musings
- Menlo: Enterprise AI spend hits $177B from $33B; Anthropic now 55% of API spend — FinanceYF5 · 2026-11-09
- Intelligence is a means, not an end: why unbounded AI RSI is hard to imagine — i_dg23 · 2026-11-09
- AI solved share of complex physics problems jumped from 2% to 35% in two years — AryHHAry · 2026-11-09
- Rigorous studies find AI substantially harms learning for half of students, benefits none — IanArawjo · 2026-11-09
- ezyang: Non-expert UX for formal verification specs is the field's key unsolved problem — ezyang · 2026-11-09
- Gary Marcus: soaring costs of incremental AI gains point to a looming bubble burst — GaryMarcus · 2026-11-09