pull down to refresh
Maybe we need to bring back the ralphwiggin skill for reviews so that we get all the findings at once instead of dripping them in, because I think the most annoying part, especially with recent Claude "improvements", is that it always leaves things out. I rarely get a list with more than 12-15 findings, then after addressing these, another 12-15 findings.
Not sure how it is for code review, but for research review you sometimes get this cycle
- This finding is interesting, you are selling it too short, you should emphasize it more!
--> go back and emphasize that result
- You are overselling this result. Your interpretation is not justified by the evidence. Tone down your claims!
Those typically occur in the same round of reviews by different reviewers.
I have yet to have the same reviewer give me that feedback in successive rounds.
a future of collaborative research via open source models
That would be great. I'd prefer that so much to the anonymous review process.
If someone thinks they can make a meaningful improvement to my work, I'd rather bring them on as a co-author who I can actually interact with.
And if they think my work is utter shit, I'd rather they do the work to publish a rebuttal themselves, rather than have to seek their approval to publish my own work.
Another point that I haven't seen brought up much is that the AI will never stop nitpicking. If you ask it to review a paper, then revise it to address every criticism, then ask AI to review it again, it will come up with a whole new set of criticisms.
Sometimes the critiques even contradict themselves, especially when it comes down to judgment calls.
I really think the traditional model of publishing is due for a reckoning.
I hope for a future of collaborative research via open source models