Post

WAIT WHAT. I read that statement very different. I read it as "authors can choose to consent or not, and must make that explicit." Not "a condition of submitting is that you consent to LLM reviews." Are you telling me the intention is the latter??

I don't disagree with this (or, rather, I totally agree, and hope to be proven wrong). As I said, the current policy was discussed and voted by the PC members: I may not agree with all, but that's the majority decision.

Sorry to say it, but the only ethical stance would be for me to immediately resign from the PC. (Spoiler alert: you will not be proved wrong, and even if it turned out to work for STOC, which it won’t, it will not for our “minor” conferences when they’ll start taking inspiration from STOC.)

That's a valid opinion. I'm trying to be pragmatic and effect change, and my resigning from the STOC PC would have had little to no positive effect (not important enough) while preventing me to influence policies in any way (which I could a bit). I'd have, temporarily, felt good about myself though.

0 reposts1 like

The LLM policy of STOC was already shitty this year, and it got worse. Nothing personal, but I don’t think you can actually improve anything from the inside (except maybe feeling good for trying, if that’s your thing) and IMHO your work would benefit society more in the PC of a better conference.