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

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

Mon, 15 Jun 2026 00:32:43 GMT

Show HN: Isitslop.xyz, a free AI-writing detector built on latest research

I have a weird habit of guessing whether something's AI before I check, especially on LinkedIn and Reddit (for obvious reasons). The detectors I used to confirm were mostly junk and built to sell you a "humanizer" upsell, so I went and read the actual research on what gives AI text away in 2026, then built my own (no login and free) The main sources I used are these: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07016 https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07183 https://aclanthology.org/2025.coling-main.426/ https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16107 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing (Amazing article on the…

5 points; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

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

Sun, 23 Jun 2024 00:25:07 GMT

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 entirely made of filler content. Here’s an excerpt from a particularly egregious recent example I ran into, which had this to say on the subject of meaningful comparison to recent work: > Additionally, while the bibliography appears to be comprehensive, there could be some minor improvements, such as including more…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

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

Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:49:12 GMT

A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

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

Fri, 05 Apr 2024 23:01:07 GMT

> 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 complexity goes and Haskell is just an unusual but simple implementation language. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2403.07183.pdf [2] https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~marijn/publications/bcd.pdf I tried that on one less known model (my son sent me a link) and on Phind two times. The Phind's responces were very illuminating ones. On a…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

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

Fri, 05 Apr 2024 14:15:43 GMT

:] 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 obvious, I was still quite surprised, that "multifaceted" didn't even get into more recent study from March 2024 [2] that pointed out skyrocketing of terms such as commendable, intricate, and meticulous. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38501589 / https://blog.j11y.io/2023-11-22_multifaceted/ /…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

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

Tue, 02 Apr 2024 19:12:10 GMT

Monitoring AI-Modified Content: Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

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

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 03:11:30 GMT

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 progression. The only one who benefits is the for-profit publishers who drown in taxpayer money. Why not automate the entire process?

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

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

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:42:41 GMT

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.07183

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

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

Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:34:55 GMT

A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.