[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.