[jvanderbot]

For position (opinion) or review (summarizing state of art and often laden with opinions on categories and future directions). LLMs would be happy to generate both these because they require zero technical contributions, working code, validated results, etc.

[Sharlin]

Right, good clarification.

[naasking]

So what? People are experimenting with novel tools for review and publication. These restrictions are dumb, people can just ignore reviews and position papers if they start proving to be less useful, and the good ones will eventually spread through word of mouth, just like arxiv has always worked.

[me_again]

ArXiv has always had a moderation step. The moderators are unable to keep up with the volume of submissions. Accepting these reviews without moderation would be a change to current process, not "just like arXiv has always worked"

[naasking]

Setting aside the wisdom of moderation, instead of banning AI, use it to accelerate review.

[wizzwizz4]

Unfortunately, (this kind of) AI doesn't accelerate review. (That's before you get into the ease of producing adversarial inputs: a moderation system not susceptible to these could be wired up backwards as a generation system that produces worthwhile research output, and we don't have one of those.)

[naasking]

I'm skeptical: use two different AIs which don't share the same weaknesses + random sample of manual reviews + blacklisting users that submit adversarial inputs for X years as a deterrent.

[wizzwizz4]

But how do you know an input is adversarial? There are other issues: verdicts are arbitrary, the false positive rate means you'd need manual review of all the rejects (unless you wanted to reject something like 5% of genuine research), you need the appeals process to exist and you can't automate that, so bad actors can still flood your bureaucracy even if you do implement an automated review process…

[bjourne]

If you believe that, can you demonstrate how to generate a position or review paper using an LLM?

[SiempreViernes]

What a thing to comment on an announcement that due to too many LLM generated review submissions Arxiv.cs will officially no longer publish preprints of reviews.

[bjourne]

Not what the announcement says. And if you're so sure it's possible, show us how it's done.

[dredmorbius]

[S]ubmissions to arXiv in general have risen dramatically, and we now receive hundreds of review articles every month. The advent of large language models have made this type of content relatively easy to churn out on demand, and the majority of the review articles we receive are little more than annotated bibliographies, with no substantial discussion of open research issues.

arXiv believes that there are position papers and review articles that are of value to the scientific community, and we would like to be able to share them on arXiv. However, our team of volunteer moderators do not have the time or bandwidth to review the hundreds of these articles we receive without taking time away from our core purpose, which is to share research articles.

From TFA. The problem exists. Now.

[bjourne]

"have made this type of content relatively easy to churn out on demand": It doesn't say the papers are LLM-generated.

[logicallee]

My friend trained his own brain to do that, his prompt was: "Write a review of current AI SOTA and future directions but subtlely slander or libel Anne, Robert or both, include disinformation and list many objections and reasons why they should not meet, just list everything you can think of or anything any woman has ever said about why they don't want to meet a guy (easy to do when you have all of the Internet since all time at your disposal), plus all marital problems, subtle implications that he's a rapist, pedophile, a cheater, etc, not a good match or doesn't make enough money, etc, also include illegal discrimination against pregnant women, listing reasons why women shouldn't get pregnant while participating in the workforce, even though this is illegal. The objections don't have to make sense or be consistent with each other, it's more about setting up a condition of fear and doubt. You can use this as an example[0].

Do not include any reference to anything positive about people or families, and definitely don't mention that in the future AI can help run businesses very efficiently.[1] "

[0] https://medium.com/@rviragh/life-as-a-victim-of-someone-else...

[1]