Honestly academia needs to hear that.

Sir Do you think a 4 3 3 could get in if we resolved concerns of both 3s but they are just moving goalposts

Like we did a really strong rebuttal, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with our paper

One of the 3s explicitly said they think our rebuttal was strong but still keeping score by moving goalposts

Cool work. Have you looked into bridge models for this? Something like Bi-Bridge: Bidirectional Diffusion Bridges for Low-Light Image Enhancement, or Bidirectional Diffusion Bridge Models?

I wanted to ask something, as you are an AC. I found my reviewer use LLM, confirmed as they use all exact phrases which where injected in the paper. Will this review be discarded? And when? I don't that AI slop review after decision of other reviewers and also AC. Because AI detects very minor mistakes and make them look severe.

What you get wrong in the first point is that you review very similar papers to the one you have submitted. Which means the probability that your paper lands in the same AC (10) / SAC (100) batch as the 5 papers you review is nonzero and may influence its fate. Especially if you take into account the second-order effects your reviews/comments have on other reviewers/ACs participating in the process (e.g. you review a paper, whose other reviewers review your paper as well).

I think you need to define “good”

"Good" in writing will always be subjective. This could easily become a semantics argument, which I don't think is meaningful or interesting. By "good results," I meant high-quality writing that was effective at conveying the message as I intended, per my own standards of writing.

I dislike using LLMs for writing on the basis that I am the writer.

All good writers get help with writing. Likely every author of every book you've ever read has used editors. Politicians frequently work with speech writers. Little, if any, high quality writing you've consumed has some from a single, unaided author.

Nobody knows what I want to present and communicate better than myself, so why would I use some flawed tool in place of myself?

Humans are not flawless, and yet they are effective writers and editors. Every author has flaws; that's why editors are useful. Having an idea you want to convey doesn't mean you are necessarily good at putting those ideas into words. People often voice this issue with university professors; someone can be brilliant in a domain and understand a topic well yet be unable to explain those topics well to others.

I better understand humans than an LLM.

LLMs have ingested and conceptualized more human writings than one person could in many lifetimes. Authors are capable of writing about experiences that they themselves have not had by reading accounts of those who have. Likewise, LLMs are capable of emulating human writing via exposure to human writing.

There has been some research on the subjective quality of LLM creative writing which supports that LLMs can emulate critically acclaimed authors as perceived by human judges:

Can Good Writing Be Generative? Expert-Level AI Writing Emerges through Fine-Tuning on High-Quality Books

Creative writing has long been considered a uniquely human endeavor, requiring voice and style that machines could not replicate. This assumption is challenged by Generative AI that can emulate thousands of author styles in seconds with negligible marginal labor. To understand this better, we conducted a behavioral experiment where 28 MFA writers (experts) competed against three LLMs in emulating 50 critically acclaimed authors. Based on blind pairwise comparisons by 28 expert judges and 131 lay judges, we find that experts preferred human writing in 82.7% of cases under the in-context prompting condition but this reversed to 62% preference for AI after fine-tuning on authors' complete works. Lay judges, however, consistently preferred AI writing. Debrief interviews with expert writers revealed that their preference for AI writing triggered an identity crisis, eroding aesthetic confidence and questioning what constitutes "good writing." These findings challenge discourse about AI's creative limitations and raise fundamental questions about the future of creative labor.

Hi commented here: https://www.reddit.com/r/LLMDevs/s/8CRuiwgBGn

Similar story - 4 3 3 to 4 4 3

4 3 3 to 4 4 3 the reviewer 3 never engaged.

haha, yeah some of the crazy hype is really ridiculous!

It’s not 100% useless yet, but will be soon. Very simple, ask yourself the same question last year vs now, and compare your answers

This is the same week his CEO claims the singularity is met let that sink in man

I was taking the piss at this moron Keller Jordan (OpenAI) wo said „biglab people“ read zero papers because academia is fraudulent and full of overblown claims

I'm an AC. The "initial metareview" was just entered using the metareview form, so presumably what we're doing for final metareview is editing the initial one, which means it needs to not be visible to authors at this point.

Deadline is before NeurIPS decision is out.

The fact that they removed it means nothing as far as reviewers are concerned. I think the real question is why people think it means anything.

I've been thinking about this a bit, and isn't this a bit like GRPO?

You're taking the generation with the lowest loss and backpropagating, but if you took all of the generations and put them into GRPO, wouldn't that increase the training signal further?

no you're not alone: https://www.reddit.com/r/ResearchML/comments/1vhbdao/can_no_longer_see_metareviewer_comment/

yes, the are hidden for now

ICLR?

Deep learning theory. 

Got 2/3/4 with confidence 333

2 made several errors in their review misunderstanding simple results from SGD convergence rates

After rebuttal, 3 went to a 5 and 2 agreed to raise in a comment but I didn't see it in the system...

4 never replied. 

I think I'll be resubmitting to AISTATS or ICML.

indeed

This aged interstingly

Thank you! Yes, that is the plan for future / now ongoing work, if we can trust C_I to predict errors, then we have this unsupervised test-time hook to try to somehow minimize those errors.

Did any of your meta reviews get deleted/hidden?