bsky.app/profile/davi...

They are already targeting the "40-questions 40-weaknesses reviewer" on Xiaohongshu, and he has since raised his score.

which seems a bit naive.... the dataset was even on Hugging Face in the meantime

Here is the official @iclr-conf.bsky.social statement

Paper Copilot is also working now papercopilot.com/statistics/i...

Reviewers are allowed to use LLMs but need to report it in their review. Not sure if this is visible to authors but its not super informative anyway (what I see as an AC is an "LLM usage: yes" entry for some of them)

Any updates on the Salon des Refusés? Do you also accept position papers?

I am not sure if they are opposed to this, but "[t]he Mexico City location will host approximately five hundred attendees". Definitely seems too small, given that China alone had almost 1,600 papers last year: papercopilot.com/paper-list/n... (click on Aff. Country)

@zeynepakata.bsky.social Maybe suggest that they accept EurIPS Copenhagen as an official third location. I think many PhD students would be happy to "just" present in Europe :)

Right. Maybe ICLR should be more precise in their statement then (e.g., it currently only refers to 'hidden' injections).

Or would I still be accused of collusion, since I am technically influencing the review---even though what I am really doing is making public that I just want to be treated fairly?

I was wondering: What if the prompt is not hidden and I simply want to protect myself from lazy reviewers? For instance, I could openly include a protection sentence in the appendix that instructs an LLM to add a subtle identifier, allowing authors and chairs to detect LLM-generated reviews.

@jwenger.bsky.social : you can find it under 'Nomination' here virtual.aistats.org/Conferences/...