VIEWS22REPLIES2
Tuhin Chakrabarty@TuhinChakr
@ipeirotis @pangram @iclr_conf I don’t think you get to decide that :) I respect your opinion but people will decide if they want to use a tool and whether it’s worth their money and time.
19hViews 22
Original post unavailable.
Sentiment
Negative users call using AI detectors like Pangram for ICLR paper reviews malpractice because it lets reviewers take shortcuts instead of checking substantive content.
Pos
0.0%
Neg
100.0%
3 comments with sentiment.
Cluster Engagement
Posts from X
Most Activity
Most Activity
Panos Ipeirotis@ipeirotis
@TuhinChakr @pangram @iclr_conf Is it trained to detect false from correct content? If not, any application for that purpose is malpractice.
19hViews 19
Panos Ipeirotis@ipeirotis
@TuhinChakr @pangram @iclr_conf If you are bored of reviewing papers do not accept invitations to review. We want reviewers that check the papers for substance, not for styles.
19hViews 6
Panos Ipeirotis@ipeirotis
@TuhinChakr @pangram @iclr_conf Sorry but it is malpractice because some reviewers take shortcuts instead of reviewing the paper for substance.
19hViews 6