← Founder Notes
Archive

A preprint comparing human and machine reviews at iclr 2026 and nature communications found the…

Yethikrishna ROriginal on Threads

a preprint comparing human and machine reviews at iclr 2026 and nature communications found the models extended critique coverage but showed a hivemind effect, agreeing with each other too much, and that ai review scores are trivially gameable through paper rewriting. biomedical publishing now exceeds 3 million manuscripts a year, which is why the answer is not to hand reviews to llms but to redesign what a review is for.

a reviewer’s job is disagreement, and models are trained to agree.

Provenance

The note above is reproduced unedited from the original post, first published on Threads on 1 October 2026 at 18:54 IST.

View the original post
Embed this note
<iframe src="https://founder.myndlabs.tech/notes/embed/a-preprint-comparing-human-and-machine-reviews-at-Dd9ApwJDQME" width="480" height="420" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy" title="A preprint comparing human and machine reviews at iclr 2026 and nature communications found the…"></iframe>

More notes