[causalityltd]

The declaration of no-LLM was done for social prestige or maybe self-deception of self-sufficiency like "I don't need LLM". And when it was time to do the actual work, the dependency kicked in like drugs. A lesson for all of us with LLMs in our workflow.

[auggierose]

The declaration of no-LLM was done so you are not judged yourself by an LLM.

[causalityltd]

Is this written in the linked article? Or the info is from other places online? Because I didn't see this.

Article seems to say that this choice was given just for review (how you will review not how you will get reviewed) and the consequence of getting caught, their paper being rejected, was a punishment, not the original trade-off or motivation for choosing option A.

Happy to be corrected.

[auggierose]

It is implied in the term "reciprocal reviewing". You are of course reviewing and being reviewed under the same policy.

Happy to correct.

[causalityltd]

oh, now I got it, thanks.

I was being too generous :)

It fits though, quite funnily: They did not want LLM near their own papers because they could not have imagined injecting prompts to get a good review and that's the same lack-of-awareness (i guess you could say 'skill issue') which made them not look for prompt injections in the first place.

If i wanted to extend the joke further, injecting prompts into your own pdf to get good reviews by reviewers using LLMs is actually work. Skill and work. And if they had that, they wouldn't be in this soup.

I'm sorry if I am the only one laughing, but I am.

Couldn't game the system the accurate way so ... got caught gaming it the lazy way!

I do feel sorry for them, I do, they must have worked hard on their papers, but this is funny. Thanks.

[iso1631]

Sure I use LLMs in my workflows. I use a calculator too.

I can divide 98,324,672,722 by 161,024 by hand. At least I used to be able to do, but nobody is going to pay me to do that when a calculator exists.

Likewise I can write a bunch of assembly (well OK I can't), but why would I do that when my compiler can convert my intention into it.

[causalityltd]

yeah but will you promise to do it by hand and then use a calculator?

Or will you have every intention to keep the promise but it would seem such a chore by now (cuz calculator is such a part of your workflow) that you would minimize the sanctity of your promise in your mind?

If yes, that's dependency, not usual use.

(I just learned that choosing no-LLM also meant no-LLM on their own papers, so I am less generous with motivations now. Wasn't dependency, just plain old self-interest. Thanks for your point.)

[bsder]

What was the upside to making the "No LLM" declaration?

I don't personally use LLMs for this kind of stuff, but I'll certainly not sign a "No LLM" pledge unless you give me some kind of benefit.

[causalityltd]

The other commenter explained that the policy was applied as reciprocal, "The declaration of no-LLM was done so you are not judged yourself by an LLM." Basically, they didn't want LLM near their own paper's review.

[bsder]

Ah, that makes more sense.

Although, a bunch of LLM researchers basically saying with their actions "Don't judge me with an LLM" is particularly ironic. Doubly so when caught using the LLM for the task they, themselves, want to opt out of.