Skip to main content
Academia

Return to Answer

deleted 2 characters in body
Source Link
terdon
terdon
  • 2.9k
  • 20
  • 21

I can contact the PC chairs. However, I cannot provide any proof, aside from mentioning the elements that make me believe that the review was generated with ChatGPT. Of course, lack of proof would also lead them to do nothing (e.g., they cannot "point the finger" to the reviewer without some solid basis).

I think this is the best approach. You can provide the elements that give you that belief, you can explain your inability to be uncertaincertain, and then you can let them decide. I would not push it much further, though; once you've brought your suspicions to light your job is done.

As far as evidence, the chairs may have other evidence to bring to the table like other reviews by the same person that you are not party to.

As far as proof, this isn't a court of law, proof is not necessary; they do not need to pillory the accused in the town square, they could instead merely choose to discount their opinion in this one specific case. If sufficiently miffed, they could choose to not invite this reviewer to participate in the future. They can potentially do either of these things without making any accusation known, and they certainly don't need to prove involvement of any specific LLM, they must merely be dissatisfied with the quality of review.

I can contact the PC chairs. However, I cannot provide any proof, aside from mentioning the elements that make me believe that the review was generated with ChatGPT. Of course, lack of proof would also lead them to do nothing (e.g., they cannot "point the finger" to the reviewer without some solid basis).

I think this is the best approach. You can provide the elements that give you that belief, you can explain your inability to be uncertain, and then you can let them decide. I would not push it much further, though; once you've brought your suspicions to light your job is done.

As far as evidence, the chairs may have other evidence to bring to the table like other reviews by the same person that you are not party to.

As far as proof, this isn't a court of law, proof is not necessary; they do not need to pillory the accused in the town square, they could instead merely choose to discount their opinion in this one specific case. If sufficiently miffed, they could choose to not invite this reviewer to participate in the future. They can potentially do either of these things without making any accusation known, and they certainly don't need to prove involvement of any specific LLM, they must merely be dissatisfied with the quality of review.

I can contact the PC chairs. However, I cannot provide any proof, aside from mentioning the elements that make me believe that the review was generated with ChatGPT. Of course, lack of proof would also lead them to do nothing (e.g., they cannot "point the finger" to the reviewer without some solid basis).

I think this is the best approach. You can provide the elements that give you that belief, you can explain your inability to be certain, and then you can let them decide. I would not push it much further, though; once you've brought your suspicions to light your job is done.

As far as evidence, the chairs may have other evidence to bring to the table like other reviews by the same person that you are not party to.

As far as proof, this isn't a court of law, proof is not necessary; they do not need to pillory the accused in the town square, they could instead merely choose to discount their opinion in this one specific case. If sufficiently miffed, they could choose to not invite this reviewer to participate in the future. They can potentially do either of these things without making any accusation known, and they certainly don't need to prove involvement of any specific LLM, they must merely be dissatisfied with the quality of review.

Source Link
Bryan Krause ♦
Bryan Krause ♦
  • 134.9k
  • 30
  • 386
  • 493

I can contact the PC chairs. However, I cannot provide any proof, aside from mentioning the elements that make me believe that the review was generated with ChatGPT. Of course, lack of proof would also lead them to do nothing (e.g., they cannot "point the finger" to the reviewer without some solid basis).

I think this is the best approach. You can provide the elements that give you that belief, you can explain your inability to be uncertain, and then you can let them decide. I would not push it much further, though; once you've brought your suspicions to light your job is done.

As far as evidence, the chairs may have other evidence to bring to the table like other reviews by the same person that you are not party to.

As far as proof, this isn't a court of law, proof is not necessary; they do not need to pillory the accused in the town square, they could instead merely choose to discount their opinion in this one specific case. If sufficiently miffed, they could choose to not invite this reviewer to participate in the future. They can potentially do either of these things without making any accusation known, and they certainly don't need to prove involvement of any specific LLM, they must merely be dissatisfied with the quality of review.