Hacker News Reader

Here is my take:

- I disagree with the contributions

- I suspect most of the paper was written / edited by "generative AI"

It is a shame that "researchers" have started using generative AI to such a large degree as it now masks the voice of the person. Generative AI tends to claim things that are not true and tends to use words that are unsuitable. This text leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

(Edits: formatting)

View on HN

In a way, this discussion here is proof as to why human code review is necessary.

- The paper is garbage, and a human review process would reject it.

__As is the case in this discussion__. The sentiment of the discussion section (at the time of writing) seems to be in favor of rejecting this paper. (Of course, to make it a proper experiment, one would need to also give the paper to a "generative AI" reviewer to see if it would reject it or not, but I cannot bother.)

It seems they didn’t even do any research. This is not science, it’s just an opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com