Post

Preparing a blog post, and as a side product I wrote some short thoughts on AI in reviewing, in TCS and beyond.

5 reposts41 likes

I don't see ICLR as TCS, tbh, and also I think that policy is wrong. (But even then, my comment stands, as technically nobody forces anyone to submit a paper to ICLR if they'd rather not.)

Well: more people are coerced into reviewing, more motivation to use AI in reviews+less confidence in peer-review, and so on :) As I said, mandatory reviewing sounds to me like a very bad and self-defeating solution to the problem ML conferences have (too many submissions)

Thinking about this, I wonder if the situation could be helped by having reviewers include AI disclosures like authors do in papers. If people don't want to be dishonest, or say that they did an obviously bad thing,...

...it could encourage them to use the tools in a way that's an improvement (better understanding of the paper, better review, etc.). Also helps the PC calibrate how seriously they should take a review.