HackerPapers

arXiv:2403.07183cs.CL

Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews

Weixin Liang, Zachary Izzo, Yaohui Zhang, Haley Lepp, Hancheng Cao, Xuandong Zhao, Lingjiao Chen, Haotian Ye, Sheng Liu, Zhi Huang, Daniel A. McFarland, James Y. Zou

Abstract

We present an approach for estimating the fraction of text in a large corpus which is likely to be substantially modified or produced by a large language model (LLM). Our maximum likelihood model leverages expert-written and AI-generated reference texts to accurately and efficiently examine real-world LLM-use at the corpus level. We apply this approach to a case study of scientific peer review in AI conferences that took place after the release of ChatGPT: ICLR 2024, NeurIPS 2023, CoRL 2023 and EMNLP 2023. Our results suggest that between 6.5% and 16.9% of text submitted as peer reviews to these conferences could have been substantially modified by LLMs, i.e. beyond spell-checking or minor writing updates. The circumstances in which generated text occurs offer insight into user behavior: the estimated fraction of LLM-generated text is higher in reviews which report lower confidence, were submitted close to the deadline, and from reviewers who are less likely to respond to author rebuttals. We also observe corpus-level trends in generated text which may be too subtle to detect at the individual level, and discuss the implications of such trends on peer review. We call for future interdisciplinary work to examine how LLM use is changing our information and knowledge practices.

arXiv comments
46 pages, 31 figures, ICML '24
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CLComputation and Language cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.LGMachine Learning cs.SISocial and Information Networks

On Hacker News

Linked by 5 identifiable commenters in 5 comments across 5 threads, from Mar 2024 to Jun 2024. Found in 4 HN submissions from Mar 2024 to Jun 2026. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments5 threads

    • Great article. One of the papers it cites is https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07183, which is also great and looks at the issue of LLM usage to write peer reviews. It’s an issue I’ve noticed personally, as I’m seeing an increasing number of reviews that lack substance and are almost…

      jean-View on HNParent context

    • > You can always prompt it to respond differently though. No, you cannot. I rarely do anything with LMs [1], but if I do I ask them to code "blocked clause decomposition" [2] in Haskell. Blocked clause decomposition is very, very simple as far as algorithm's implementation…

      theszView on HNParent context

    • :] By their tongue, you will know them. Tangentially related: I really loved the 'shibboleth' that went like complex and multifaceted [things] that encompass [other things] from November 2023 [1]. Even though it was clear this will soon disappear from newer models being too…

      myfonjView on HNParent context

    • Worry not! People also use ChatGPT for peer review now. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07183 The entire scientific publication process is garbage. I say that as someone on ~140 papers who has quit academia: we focus on writing papers that nobody reads to tick boxes for career…

      a_bonoboView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.