▲ 53 ▼ Don’t cite the Adversarial Poetry vs AI paper — it’s chatbot-made marketing ‘science’ (pivot-to-ai.com) submitted 11 months ago by dgerard@awful.systems to c/techtakes@awful.systems 9 comments fedilink hide all child comments Not even poetically sound https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnIDt3xATVw&list=UU9rJrMVgcXTfa8xuMnbhAEA - video https://pivottoai.libsyn.com/20251124-dont-cite-the-adversarial-poetry-vs-ai-paper-its-chatbot-made-science - podcast time: 5 min 46 sec
[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 9 points 11 months ago (5 children) AI preprints : peer review :: Scott Aaronson : cops permalink fedilink source hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] dgerard@awful.systems [S] 7 points 11 months ago (1 child) hey hey hey!! there's always making it a Conference Proceeding permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blakestacey@awful.systems 8 points 11 months ago yes indeedy permalink fedilink source parent [–] lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems 5 points 11 months ago* (2 children) You'd think peer review would make things better here, but big ML conferences have to deal with an absurd amount of submissions these days. NeurIPS this year got over 21000. The system they use for reviews is that anyone who submits a paper is required to review a certain number of other papers. So yeah, your ML paper is getting reviewed by other people who happen to submit their own papers. Who are competing with you to get their own papers accepted. Yeah, no problems there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dgerard@awful.systems [S] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child) and they're all using chatbots in their methodology and for the mandatory reviews permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blakestacey@awful.systems 3 points 11 months ago Not all, but more than half (at ICLR). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dgerard@awful.systems [S] 7 points 11 months ago (1 child) hey hey hey!! there's always making it a Conference Proceeding permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blakestacey@awful.systems 8 points 11 months ago yes indeedy permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems 5 points 11 months ago* (2 children) You'd think peer review would make things better here, but big ML conferences have to deal with an absurd amount of submissions these days. NeurIPS this year got over 21000. The system they use for reviews is that anyone who submits a paper is required to review a certain number of other papers. So yeah, your ML paper is getting reviewed by other people who happen to submit their own papers. Who are competing with you to get their own papers accepted. Yeah, no problems there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dgerard@awful.systems [S] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child) and they're all using chatbots in their methodology and for the mandatory reviews permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blakestacey@awful.systems 3 points 11 months ago Not all, but more than half (at ICLR). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dgerard@awful.systems [S] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child) and they're all using chatbots in their methodology and for the mandatory reviews permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] blakestacey@awful.systems 3 points 11 months ago Not all, but more than half (at ICLR). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 3 points 11 months ago Not all, but more than half (at ICLR). permalink fedilink source parent