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/...

Tangier it is 😃

This is for ICLR 2025. While I see the "Theory" effect Ahmad described, I am not sure we can draw any conclusions from the small sample size of an AC batch. My batch includes one paper with an average of 4, one with 3.6, and the rest are below 3.5 (so perhaps more in line with Ahmad's findings).

That's awesome @serge.belongie.com !!

Quick question: How should authors present at both NeurIPS and EurIPS if the conferences have overlapping dates?