The supply of knowledgeable and conscientious reviewers in, say, machine learning, is far outmatched by the number of papers less knowledgeable and conscientious people submit.
142 karma · joined May 17, 2025
My guess is that differentiating human- and AI-generated content at anything approaching Google scale has become hard, and Google's best option is to prioritize known information sources, which are necessarily large firms with some amount of reputational proof (though I'd also say that Forbes is not my go-to example of a good actor in this space).
Reviewing dynamics make this hard. There is little to no reward for reviewers, and it is much easier to write a long and bad paper than it is to review it carefully (and LLMs have upset this balance even further). To suggest that every submitted paper should occupy several weeks of expert attention is to fundamentally misunderstand how many crappy papers are getting submitted.