NeurIPS 2026 Reviewer: AI-Generated Rebuttals (and Paper) [D]
Mirrored from r/MachineLearning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
One of the papers I reviewed has what seems to be entirely LLM-generated rebuttals, and the original paper is also clearly LLM-generated, with Claude-speak everywhere. While the authors acknowledge LLM writing assistance in the checklist, it really annoys me personally - what is clearly Claude's writing style is very difficult to parse, and indicates a lack of effort to me. While I'm trying to remain objective and realize it's my role just to judge the actual content of the work, I don't feel incentivized to assign a lot of weight to an argument that is fully AI-generated and don't like the idea of engaging with slopped papers (and their "authors") at NeurIPS.
This is a partially just a rant and partially asking for advice on how to proceed with my response to the rebuttals.
[link] [comments]
More from r/MachineLearning
-
A collision-entropy floor for watermark/retrieval AI-text detection. Looking for a sanity check before I take this further [D]
Aug 14
-
Are supervised and unsupervised learning still relevant today? [D]
Aug 14
-
TMLR Relevance and Prestige [D]
Aug 13
-
Reproducible canvas-aligned low-level patterns in somerandomllm-generated images and their possible relation to iterative editing artifacts [D]
Aug 13
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.