Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice & Mothra

do syllabi still include the mythical man-month? one of the more valuable texts i purchased as an undergrad. and prolly still v relevant, if not moreso.

combination proctoring center-dunkin franchise. 👍

I suspect AI can generate things that look like good systematic reviews to some, the same way it can generate proofs or experiments that look like good theory or analysis to some; while others (reviewers, experts in those methods) will recognize the errors.

on the other hand, position papers in more algorithmic venues are new. what counts as a good position paper is unclear. I suspect for moderation this matters bc we need to understand what a position paper below threshold means.

I hope that review articles that use a systematic review as a method would be considered to use evidence.

the quality of the type of work depends on community norms and peer review. I don’t know enough about how arxiv moderation works to suggest a protocol but it seems like the new policy excludes work w evidence that is more legible to some of the cs community.

even within ai, we often have theory papers rejected for lack of empirical evidence, empirical papers rejected for lack of theoretical evidence, evaluation papers rejected for lack of mitigation.

a philosopher once told me, in response to my concern about their paper missing relevant work, that they didnt have citations bc their community’s way of working was to go away, think, come back, and write, without consulting the literature deeply.

this may be the core of the problem. “good evidence” can vary by discipline. a paper w lots of reasonable evidence in one discipline can look thin from another.