He observed the trend while evaluating NeurIPS 2026 submissions
Observations from reviewing a few #neurips2026 submissions (curious if others have similar impressions): 1. AI-heavy submissions (in both writing and research process) are harder to review -- very packed with details and numerous appendices.
No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.
4. AI reviewing would likely prefer AI-heavy papers. 5. If we go into a cycle of heavy usage of AI in both conducting research, writing it, and reading it (which seems unavoidable at the moment), it's probably going to get harder for humans to understand the research outputs.
2. I find it hard to assess their quality: maybe they're good despite being indigestible for a human, maybe not. 3. There seem to be more of these papers this year.
2. I find it hard to assess their quality: maybe they're good despite being indigestible for a human, maybe not. 3. There seem to be more of these papers this year.
Observations from reviewing a few #neurips2026 submissions (curious if others have similar impressions): 1. AI-heavy submissions (in both writing and research process) are harder to review -- very packed with details and numerous appendices.