Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I didn't read carefully enough at the beginning of the article, and at first I thought Caleb and Issac must be two different algorithms for detecting AI in published papers. Eventually I realized they are the names of the two authors who wrote this article (with AI assistance). Anyways, I was wondering how the two of them managed to disagree? Were the papers each human flagged as concerning the same between the two humans? I should keep reading carefully, just thought I would point it out to other humans too, maybe save them from the same mistaken thought.
    by skyberrys
  • See Chavda's Paradox. 1. https://zencapital.substack.com/p/chavdas-paradox
    by zenincognito
  • “…because conferences have made it mandatory to review 4-5 papers if you submit to them.”

    Is that really a thing? So if I submit a legit paper it is being reviewed forcefully by a bunch of random people from god knows where?

    by low_tech_love
  • This is a side effect of academia never taking open accessibility to papers and journals seriously.

    If all these papers were not gatekept by journals, it would be trivially easy to validate at least the existence of cited papers and quotes.

    by dghlsakjg
  • https://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions

    They should consider swapping this for a log plot.

    I can imagine in 2027 academia looking like Moltbook.

    by kingstnap
  • I feel like this should be treated as, and have consequences similar to, plagiarism.

    Alas, it's probably just wishful thinking on my part.

    by DarkUranium
  • The next logical step in "publish or perish". Get rid of p-o-p and this problem will also largely disappear.

    I know managers and administrators want a simple metric, but there is no simple metric for research.

    by bradley13
  • At this point, in the field of AI research:

    - papers are written by AI (as pointed out in this article, and as obvious to anyone who spends a while actually reading recent AI research)

    - papers are reviewed by AI (NeurIPS is doing an AI assisted review experiment - https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/ai-reviewing-experiment - and I feel the trend is moving towards AI reviewers whether we like it or not)

    - papers are read, summarized and digested by AI, because there are just so many papers at leading AI conferences that nobody has time to eyeball them all

    We are very rapidly automating humans out of the academic publication loop here.

    by nneonneo

Explore Birbla archives