Karlsson

Engineer

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@kchonyc @alexcdot Withdrawn is warranted. This is clear academic misconduct.

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@OpenAI this seems to be like a data leak issue. How could other person’s personal information appear in the responses

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

OpenAI ChatGPT 5.2 leaks personal information. This is not good!

My brother and I share similar names, but we have two completely different OpenAI ChatGPT accounts, with access to personal sensitive information to different projects (with different companies) we are working on.

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

Imagine what happens to more sensitive corporate account with corporate data

[MrBeast @MrBeast]

I’m gonna give 10 random people that repost this and follow me $25,000 for fun (the $250,000 my X video made)

I’ll pick the winners in 72 hours

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@rasoolfa @yuxiangw_cs This should go both way. Authors are not allowed to add additional extensive experimental results. Reviewers should not be allowed to ask additional experiments. The paper should be assessed as is (without considering its unrealized potential of adding further experiments).

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@yuxiangw_cs @rasoolfa I fully agree. If a paper substantially lack experiments to support its claims, it should be rejected. Authors should not be allowed to add extensive experimental results in the rebuttal phase and expect reviewer to review a substantially changed paper. It is not fair

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@markus_with_k @icmlconf No reply from any of three reviewers for my submission

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@pengzh97 @icmlconf Rebuttal will be visible to reviewer and area chair after 19th march. It will be followed by a discussion among authors, reviewers until 26th.

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@DanielJ20335910 @kchonyc I do not think this is an acceptable reason for not submitting review on time. After all, we are all adults and we should be held accountable for our own decisions and actions (agreeing to review and submitting on time).

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@hassaan84s @Patrici58145561 @chhaviyadav_ @iclr_conf @aistats_conf Seems that the discussion portal is still open. I can still comment as of now. Does it mean ACs are still writing meta reviews and the deadline for decision is extended?

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@MGerstgrasser @iclr_conf All your responses are for AC’s consideration. If you believe you have adequately addressed all concerns, perhaps just sit back,relax and let things roll its course. It is out of our control anyway…

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@skundu52 @_beenkim Seconded.

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@rahiment It could also be that for borderline paper, AC will organize virtual meeting with reviewers. They will not respond until the virtual meeting is done and comments are finalized. In that case, we will probably not hear from them until early to mid December.

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@rahiment I did not get any response from reviewers. AC is also ghosting me. Very disappointing

[Karlsson @yhytxwd]

@JiaxiLyu I got no feedback from any of my 4 reviewers. It has been 8 days

[Rosanne Liu @savvyRL]

Now that ML is so much about scaling up on all fronts, and so little about ideas, scientific awards (e.g. "NeurIPS oral") should be resource normalized.

Student and independent researcher led research should NOT be evaluated the same way as industry-backed research. Period.