""very verbose with lots of bullet points""
""the standard statistical analyses that reviewers ask for in typical AI or machine-learning papers.""
""People were suspicious, but they didn't have any concrete proof,""
""Over the course of 12 hours, we wrote some code to parse out all of the text content from these paper submissions,""
Dozens of academics raised concerns about hallucinated citations and vague, unusually long peer-review feedback for submissions to the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Some reviews requested analyses that differ from standard statistical practices. Graham Neubig reported receiving reviews that were very verbose with lots of bullet points and offered a reward on X to scan submissions for AI-generated text. Pangram Labs screened 19,490 studies and 75,800 peer reviews and found about 21% of reviews fully AI-generated and more than half containing signs of AI use. Pangram posted the findings online.
Read at Nature
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]