[QuadmasterXLII]

It's paper reviewing season for me and I think I got one of these submitted. Took a while reading it to realize that it wasn't just a stupid human writing it, there was literally no substance there to find. I can't share details because the confidentiality statement I signed as part of reviewing was pretty strict. However, going forward we are going to have to start deanonymizing and blacklisting the 'authors,' otherwise the ratio of time spent 'writing' vs reviewer time wasted will be crippling.

[twobitshifter]

In one group that I am part of, we had a reviewer use AI on submissions, this scared the larger org and we now have a policy of no-AI reviews - however I think AI is closer to competently reviewing some elements of papers than it is editing them itself. For example, it’s the best spelling / grammar tool I’ve ever seen. Since many submissions are by non native English speakers, a limited AI review comment would make sense to me.

Overall, because of the happy to serve alignment of commercial AI it’s more likely to praise us than be critical, which would mean that OTS models may not fit in to the reviews of methods and conclusions.

[disqard]

It is likely that soon, all authors will use AI to "author" their papers, and reviewers will use AI to "review" these papers.

Quite an interesting situation, where academia becomes intermediated via LLMs.