NeurIPS currently lacks rules prohibiting AI-generated paper submissions.
@gleech I've got such a soft spot for their cheesy neologisms
Probably because I'm fond of one myself
reviewing an obviously AI-generated paper (tone-deaf neologisms, 30 tables, 400 experimental conditions, vast fully-commented code). But Neurips has no rule against this, so I'm stuck with this burning sensation, wasting my bloody time. Then I see the hidden prompt injection...
Many users criticized AI-generated analysis in NeurIPS papers as boring or unacceptable, while a few appreciated terms like prompt injection as cheesy neologisms.
No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.
(seems to be Neurips inserting them)
cesspool world
@gleech rejecting the paper but giving the prompt injection a strong accept
was not intentionally subtweeting economics job market papers but I was
@gleech Seen newbs hawking AI-generated analysis as though they are a great revelation that everyone wants, when actually the AI is just a big bore to anyone who has already done the work.
@HaydnBelfield me making cheesy neologisms and having my robot butler do it for me: Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!!
me reading other people's cheesy neologisms: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.
@gleech huh wait what? why would they do that?
@tmkadamcz to catch bad reviewers with these slightly out-of-distribution phrases
@Mars_Clock @gleech I hope that posting AI analysis will be as socially acceptable as posting screenshots of search results.
@gleech nAI-ll ferguson