Same here. With Claude 4, pandas becomes usable again but every time I tried torch models, all shapes are messed up. What I like though is that the AI agent often comes up with little clever helper bash scripts to test stuff (because it doesn’t understand the code base 😁)

Would I ever want to have the reviews written by LLMs? Hell, no!

I think they serve well as a guide of how to do reviews well. “Have you checked x?” I often find actual flaws that I would have missed otherwise. You don’t have to understand a paper to find flaws. Just think of: “we did x to improve y” - without backing it up by a citation.

Why? Isn’t the main point to identify flaws? I often found an LLM finds 10 flaws and only 1-2 of them are valid concerns. So yes this is dangerous if just used without human in the loop. But also often I find ideas what to check in detail based on the initial LLM summary.

Just wonder whether the reviewer demographics are something specific to your field. I review about 10-20 papers per year, I don’t get payed by the public and looking at our main conferences like ICASSP it looks like (no numbers) at least half of the reviewers do have an industry position.

true. But it thought IEEE owns the idea of paying much more and getting much less than at other conferences :-)

@fakufaku.bsky.social can I do this with pyroomacoustics? Or do you know a simpler idea?