Rendered at 23:49:04 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
magic_hamster 3 hours ago [-]
Solving the paper submission is easy. Just hold frontal interview where the submitter defends their paper. They can't create papers every day and still be knowledgeable about them in depth.
We are hurling to a reality where the only noteworthy metric is human to human validation.
glial 2 hours ago [-]
Paper reviews are traditionally blinded, so the reviewer doesn't know the authorship of the paper they're reading.
SpicyLemonZest 3 hours ago [-]
If a journal finds that it's getting more papers than peer reviewers are willing to go through, how does a more heavyweight, synchronous review process solve the problem? Many researchers already find peer review requests annoying, they're not going to agree to hold a bunch of video calls.
watwut 3 hours ago [-]
Big part of the annoyance is that journals demand basically free labor - while costing massive amount of money if you want to read them.
A review call might just end up being less work then reading a lot of slop papers.
handfuloflight 3 hours ago [-]
How about we embrace the era of the superhuman?
lagudragu 9 minutes ago [-]
What superhuman? This system will never have a 99.99% accuracy based on its current prediction models and data input, neither is it a targeted to make us superhumans in the first place.
It still will need human supervision for corrections and if it doesn't it won't require humans to process further. Humans are not in the central picture of the future of AI.
coldtea 1 hours ago [-]
It's not the era of the superman coming. It's the era of the sewers man.
We are hurling to a reality where the only noteworthy metric is human to human validation.
A review call might just end up being less work then reading a lot of slop papers.
It still will need human supervision for corrections and if it doesn't it won't require humans to process further. Humans are not in the central picture of the future of AI.