arXiv preprint ·
Ignore the Writing: A Proposal for Peer Review in the Age of AI
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
The written paper has long stood in as proof of work: a fluent, well-structured manuscript was taken as evidence that good research lay behind it. Generative AI has broken that link. Polished manuscripts now cost nothing to produce, submissions are outgrowing what reviewers can absorb, and venues are turning to AI for help. The logical endpoint is a loop where AI writes the papers and AI reviews them. We argue that this loop is survivable, but only if it is given a reward function, and that human reviewing effort should become that reward function. We propose that submissions should consist of a 1500-word brief plus an unlimited, machine-verifiable appendix. Human reviewers judge whether a pursuit is worthwhile, models verify the experimental record in the appendix, and human curation decides where the field goes next.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Human-Computer Interaction
Integrated data, metadata, and paradata management system for 3D Digital Cultural Heritage objects: Workflow automation, federated authentication, and publication
Jaxnasium: Embracing PyTrees For Any-Agent, Cross-Suite Reinforcement Learning
Beyond fabrication: Misattributed numbers in papers written by AI research agents
Tampered ML: Evaluating LLM Judgment of Machine Learning Research
Rebuilding a Field's Open-Problem Catalog from the Literature: A Two-Layer Knowledge Graph, and Why Status Must Stay Proposed
Get the few papers worth your time in Human-Computer Interaction every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.