(1/5) Open Publication and the Prisoners dilemma.
The prisoner’s dilemma game can offer us much insight into the publication strategy of leading industrial AI research labs. Suppose there are two labs A and B. If A and B both publish they are both better off than if they both don’t publish as they can build on the results of each other.
I am an AC for ICLR 2026. One of the papers in my batch was just withdrawn. The authors wrote a brief response, explaining why the reviewers failed at their job. I agree with most of their comments. The authors gave up. They are fed up. Just like many of us. I understand. We pretend the emperor has clothes, but he is naked.
Here is the final part of their withdrawal notice. I took the liberty to make it public, to highlight that what we are doing with AI conference reviews these last few years is, basically, madness.
---
Comment: We thank the reviewers for their time.
However, upon reading the reviews for our paper, it became immediately apparent that the four "reject" ratings are not based on good-faith academic disagreement, but on a critical failure to read the submitted paper.
The reviews are rife with demonstrably false claims that are directly contradicted by the text. The core justifications for rejection rely on asserting that key components are "missing" when they are explicitly detailed in the manuscript. Some specific examples are (and many are even fake claims).
Claim: Harder tasks like GSM8K are missing.
Fact: GSM8K results are in many tables, like Table 2 (Section 4.2) and Appendix G.
Claim: The method does not use per-layer ranks.
Fact: This is the entire point of our method. The reviewer clearly mistook our method for the baselines. (Section 2, Table 1).
Claim: The GP kernel is not specified.
Fact: It is specified in Appendix E (Table 6).
Claim: There is no ablation of the method's three stages.
Fact: Section 4.4 ("Ablation Study") and Appendix J are dedicated to this.
Reviewers have a fundamental responsibility to read and evaluate the work they are assigned. The nature of these errors is so fundamental, so systemic in overlooking explicit content, that it goes far beyond what "limited time" or "oversight" can explain. This work has gone through several rounds of revision over the last year. In earlier submissions, the paper usually received borderline or weak-accept scores.
Numerous signs strongly suggest that some reviewers are relying entirely on AI tools to automatically generate peer reviews, rather than fulfilling their fundamental responsibility of personally reading and evaluating manuscripts.
We strongly protest this.
This is a gross disrespect to the authors. It is a flagrant desecration of the reviewer's sacred duty. It fundamentally undermines the integrity of the entire peer-review process.
Given that the reviews are not based on the actual content of our paper, we have decided to withdraw the submission.
We leave this comment so that future readers of the OpenReview page are aware that the items described as "missing" are already present in the submitted manuscript. These negative reviews for this submission are factually unsound and do not reflect the content of the paper. We cannot and will not accept an assessment that is not based on the work we actually submitted.
How much an AI alone can segment one of the most complex 3D images, visualizing subcellular structures at diverse scale? Without any training, fine-tuning?
Check out our paper using stable diffusion foundation model for multiscale segmentation of cellular cryo-ET tomograms!
Unsupervised Multi-scale Segmentation of Cellular Cryo-electron Tomograms with Stable Diffusion Foundation Model https://t.co/ngzYnZ8nYT #biorxiv_bioinfo
Started reviewing PhD applications this year, and while I expected it, I am still blown away by the students' achievements before starting their PhDs. The 2015 version of me wouldn't have even made it past the first round.
Whereas US haven’t seen any elected female president yet; many don’t know that Bangladesh haven’t seen any elected male head of state since 1990, the last one became a dictator, though.
Thrilled to launch the AI4BIO Center @CarnegieMellon! Our goal is to tackle grand challenges in understanding how cells work using AI/ML. Excited to help recruit faculty and foster collaboration across @SCSatCMU and campus. There is truly no place like CMU https://t.co/zSPoEhksee
I am delighted to share that I have been awarded "Outstanding Research Accomplishment" by @CMUPittCompBio. This is awarded to students who have made significant research contributions to the program. A student can get this award only once.
do you know how much money the Awami League government has looted?
look at the figure: $93,760,348,000.
in Bangladeshi Taka, this amounts to 11,002,158,019,503.20, which has been smuggled out over the past 16 years.
BREAKING: Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina imposes a NATIONWIDE BAN on Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, and YouTube.
Leftist PM Sheikh Hasina's AUTHORITARIAN RULE = CENSORSHIP & SUPPRESSION.
90 + people killed today in Bangladesh. Open fire by the Chatra League. Police marking the houses of those who support the movement. Indefinite curfew announced. Hasina - your brutality will be your downfall.
Tomorrow will be vital. Mass strike, civil disobedience, and the nationwide 'March to Dhaka' with a call for all workers to join. Tomorrow, all of us who can should uplift the struggle of Bangladesh. They will shut off the internet but make no mistake - we are with you all the way. Workers of the world unite!
Inquilab zindabad. Committees of struggle everywhere. Bring down Hasina. All power to the working people!
#StepDownHasina #SaveBangladeshiStudents
@sajeebwazed@albd1971@sajeebwazed is a Pathological Liar just like his mom fascist Hasina. Killing peaceful protesters, commiting violence, but playing victim card in media. People demand resignation of his mom's fascist regime and hand over power to an interim government to arrange a fair election.