No it didn’t. It was not a conventional peer review process, it was an aesthetic review of if it looked adequate, not if the content was, and only barely passed… at an ai conference workshop… by people who knew it was an ai produced paper. this is shameful work.

Peer review for a workshop at an AI conference. Seems like one big circlejerk.

Lmk when it happens for a major journal that isn’t Elsevier

Edit: what are the implications when an “AI scientist” has to eventually retract a paper due to inaccuracies/hallucinations? Who will be ultimately held accountable? This issue seems like one big ethical gray area.

First? I seem to recall a group getting garbage auto-gen through peer review without AI.