Post

Clément Canonne

@ccanonne.github.io

Preparing a blog post, and as a side product I wrote some short thoughts on AI in reviewing, in TCS and beyond.

Thomas Steinke

@stein.ke

> nobody forces anybody to be on a Program Committee, or to be a (sub)reviewer

Clément Canonne

@ccanonne.github.io

I don't see ICLR as TCS, tbh, and also I think that policy is wrong. (But even then, my comment stands, as technically nobody forces anyone to submit a paper to ICLR if they'd rather not.)

Suresh Venkatasubramanian

@geomblog.bsky.social

I agree with your point on the merits. The problem that @stein.ke raises though has its own cascading effect. More people decline reviewing, fewer reviewers, more motivation to use AI in reviews, and so on.

Clément Canonne

@ccanonne.github.io

Well: more people are coerced into reviewing, more motivation to use AI in reviews+less confidence in peer-review, and so on :) As I said, mandatory reviewing sounds to me like a very bad and self-defeating solution to the problem ML conferences have (too many submissions)

10/10/26, 8:10 am0 reposts2 likes

Suresh Venkatasubramanian

@geomblog.bsky.social

I think that's also true in the larger scheme of things. it's a stopgap but long run creates more problems. not to mention a vastly increased author pool doesn't necessarily imply a vastly increased qualified reviewer pool.