ICLR 审稿季吐槽：AI 写作到底哪里出了问题

What is wrong with AI writing - ICLR edition [D]

AI 导读

ICLR 审稿人指出，大量投稿的 AI 写作难以读懂，例如出现“在六个操作点上均不劣于最优基线、在三个置换安慰剂上均不劣于安慰剂、增益最高约 1.5 未被排除”这类表述。发帖者认为“明显是 AI 写的”并非恰当批评，因为 AI 辅助编辑本身被允许，关键是要能说清文字为何糟糕，并征集匿名案例及针对不同类型 AI 写作滥用的实质批评方法。

正文

I'm sure many of us are slogging through impenetrable AI writing as we finish ICLR reviewing.

I'll try to create an anonymized version from a paper I'm reviewing, though it's hard to match Claude on this:

outperforms the best baseline costing no more at none of six operating points and a permuted placebo at none of three, with gains up to about 1.5 not excluded

My question for the community is this: how do we call out this type of bad writing?

The reason I think it's tricky is that "clearly AI writing" is not the right way to critique - AI "editing" of writing is allowed. We have to be able to say why this is bad, no matter who wrote it.

I'd love to see anonymized examples and how people critique the substance of the problems with different types of AI writing over-use.

submitted by /u/bobrodsky
[link] [留言]