A controversy is emerging over the submission of AI-generated studies to the ICLR conference, with three AI labs participating. Sakana disclosed its AI-generated work to ICLR leaders and secured peer reviewer consent, while Intology and Autoscience did not. Critics argue this undermines the peer review process, as reviewing is a labor-intensive task often performed on a volunteer basis. Additionally, previous studies show a significant percentage of AI conference submissions contain synthetic text, raising further ethical questions about the role of AI in academic publishing.
"All these AI scientist papers are using peer-reviewed venues as their human evals, but no one consented to providing this free labor."
"[Intology's] papers received unanimously positive reviews," Intology wrote in a post on X touting its ICLR results.
Collection
[
|
...
]