alt Hacker NewsThis comment doesn't seem to fit the discussion at all?
The discussion is not about humans using LLLs to write papers. It is about humans who agreed not to use LLVM in reviewing papers, then did exactly that.
Replies
In addition to being a reviewer, they also submitted their own research to this journal. So it leads to the question: if they were willing to cheat on the side of review with less incentive, why wouldn’t they cheat on the side that provides more incentives?
(Meaning, your career doesn’t get boosted much for reviewing papers, but much more so for publishing papers)
It might be that paper authors required others not to use LLMs for reviewing their work. Then, by the rule of reciprocity, they shouldn't use LLMs for reviewing others work. The article is unclear on whether this implied reciprocity rule was explicitly stated or not.
There's a lot of irony in a defensive comment being written based on misreading / inattentive reading of a post about reviewing papers (requiring attentive reading).