Gilad Mishne argues NeurIPS meta-reviewers should not synthesize feedback for authors

Also, stop making up new tasks and hoops for ACs to jump through every year. We are working for free, respect our time and effort. This circus just keeps getting crazier and crazier. 4/4

8:13 AM · Jul 15, 2026

@AvivTamar1 Then the LLM can write the meta-review as well. Why are they wasting my time? (That is what the authors will do with all the reviews anyway 🙄)

9:10 AM · Jul 15, 2026

AT

Aviv Tamar@AvivTamar1

When we accept that LLMs write the papers and reviews for the sake of 'scale', things start to get strange

9:06 AM · Jul 15, 2026

Combined views

551

2 posts, first seen 5h ago

5 likes1 comments

1 comments

2 reposts

Sentiment

Positive0%100%Negative

Positive Read

Users in the replies criticize NeurIPS meta-reviews as pointless extra tasks that waste volunteer reviewers' time when LLMs could handle paper scaling instead.

Based on 2 visible X reactions from 2 accounts; directional sample.

Digg Deeper

Ask a question below.

Published answers will appear here.

Commentary on X

Also, stop making up new tasks and hoops for ACs to jump through every year. We are working for free, respect our time and effort. This circus just keeps getting crazier and crazier. 4/4

8:13 AM · Jul 15, 2026

@AvivTamar1 Then the LLM can write the meta-review as well. Why are they wasting my time? (That is what the authors will do with all the reviews anyway 🙄)

9:10 AM · Jul 15, 2026

AT

Aviv Tamar@AvivTamar1

When we accept that LLMs write the papers and reviews for the sake of 'scale', things start to get strange

9:06 AM · Jul 15, 2026