Paul Cantrell @inthehands@hachyderm.io
Public

Ha ha — but also note that the 21% figure is itself •generated by an automated tool•:

❝The next day, he got a response from Max Spero, chief executive of Pangram Labs in New York City, which develops tools to detect AI-generated text. Pangram screened all 19,490 studies and 75,800 peer reviews.…Pangram’s analysis revealed that around 21% of the ICLR peer reviews were fully AI-generated, and more than half contained signs of AI use.❞

The word “revealed” is doing way too much work there.

1/

Re this from @GossiTheDogKevin Beaumont:
cyberplace.social/@GossiTheDog

Kevin Beaumont (@GossiTheDog@cyberplace.social)

Around a quarter of papers at an AI conference were found to have been written by AI. Additionally, a good portion of the peer reviews were also found to have been done by AI. People at the event are now raising concerns everything was essentially bollocks. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03506-6

cyberplace.social · Cyberplace

0
0
0

If you have a fediverse account, you can quote this note from your own instance. Search https://hachyderm.io/users/inthehands/statuses/115633775869842685 on your instance and quote it. (Note that quoting is not supported in Mastodon.)