[fooker]

Publishing CS papers at the top venues requires using in-group language and formalism that is pretty much inaccessible to someone who has not done a PhD in that specific narrow field.

LLMs are pretty good at this, hilariously. This means a genuinely good paper by an outsider has significantly less chance of getting good reviews than AI slop.

[DonHopkins]

If an LLM can present good research in the field's required dialect better than a human outsider can, calling the result "AI slop" tells us nothing about its quality -- only about your prejudice against how it was produced.

And when that prejudice degrades the quality of your own thinking and writing, you're producing "human slop", which is considerably more tragic: you ought to be capable of doing better than the AI.

You're holding it wrong.

[phoghed]

> genuinely good content, dismissed without deep engagement because it didn’t use the correct in group language, would have otherwise passed muster

> genuinely bad content, dismissed after deep engagement

You have to be misreading the GP on purpose. Maybe feed it to your LLM of choice next time before you rant at someone.

The crux of their point is that outsiders have no mastery of this supposed specialized dialect, and LLMs do.

[fooker]

Exactly right.

Not only is it specialized, it also has its own field specific memes* and trends that evolve over time.

The purpose is mostly to signal "I'm one of you".

*memes as in the actual meaning of memes, not internet memes.

[fooker]

I think, maybe you misunderstood my comment?

I'm all for LLMs producing good research. That's obviously happening right now.

What I said was people with good research being penalized for not knowing in-group language.

It's not a zero sum game.