Hacker News Reader

There's a lot of irony in a defensive comment being written based on misreading / inattentive reading of a post about reviewing papers (requiring attentive reading).

It might be that paper authors required others not to use LLMs for reviewing their work. Then, by the rule of reciprocity, they shouldn't use LLMs for reviewing others work. The article is unclear on whether this implied reciprocity rule was explicitly stated or not.

It was. More details here: https://icml.cc/Conferences/2026/LLM-Policy

In particular: "Any reviewer who is an author on a paper that requires Policy A must also be willing to follow Policy A."

In addition to being a reviewer, they also submitted their own research to this journal. So it leads to the question: if they were willing to cheat on the side of review with less incentive, why wouldn’t they cheat on the side that provides more incentives?

(Meaning, your career doesn’t get boosted much for reviewing papers, but much more so for publishing papers)