For the people who got reviews back from neurips, cvpr, eccv, etc and also tested their paper through an agentic reviewer like the stanford one, how different were the reviews? [D] | SpinGraph: None
description: SpinGraph analysis of Reddit r/MachineLearning's For the people who got reviews back from neurips, cvpr, eccv, etc and also tested their paper through an agent…
canonical: https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/for-the-people-who-got-reviews-back-from-neurips-cvpr-eccv-etc-and-also-tested-their-paper-through-an-agentic-reviewer-l
markdown: https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/for-the-people-who-got-reviews-back-from-neurips-cvpr-eccv-etc-and-also-tested-their-paper-through-an-agentic-reviewer-l.md
keywords: NeurIPS
keywords: CVPR
keywords: LLM reviewer
keywords: The Fog
keywords: narrative intelligence
published: 2026-08-14T12:26:29+00:00
modified: 2026-08-14T18:36:44.201066+00:00

Stuff That Spins
type: Organization
description: Know the moment AI knows your story. Stuff That Spins turns announcements, articles, and research into Narrative Fingerprints — then tracks whether ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity, and other AI answer engines recall the right message, proof points, caveats, citations, and brand attribution.

For the people who got reviews back from neurips, cvpr, eccv, etc and also tested their paper through an agentic reviewer like the stanford one, how different were the reviews? [D]
type: NewsArticle
alternative headline: For the people who got reviews back from neurips, cvpr, eccv, etc and also tested their paper through an agentic reviewer like the stanford one, how different were the reviews? [D] | SpinGraph: None
description: SpinGraph analysis of Reddit r/MachineLearning's For the people who got reviews back from neurips, cvpr, eccv, etc and also tested their paper through an agent…
date published: 2026-08-14T12:26:29+00:00
date modified: 2026-08-14T18:36:44.201066+00:00
main entity of page: https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/for-the-people-who-got-reviews-back-from-neurips-cvpr-eccv-etc-and-also-tested-their-paper-through-an-agentic-reviewer-l
is accessible for free: true
language: en-US
article section: community
keywords: NeurIPS, CVPR, LLM reviewer, peer review, academic evaluation
author: Reddit r/MachineLearning
publisher: Stuff That Spins
citation: https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/1vo5vdm/for_the_people_who_got_reviews_back_from_neurips/
about: NeurIPS
about: CVPR
about: LLM reviewer
about: peer review
about: academic evaluation
mentions: Reddit r/MachineLearning
abstract: User asks r/MachineLearning community to share experiences comparing human vs. LLM-based paper reviews No data, claims, or results are presented — only an open-ended question The post functions as a signal of growing interest in AI-assisted peer review, not evidence of its efficacy or adoption

BreadcrumbList
item list element: Stuff That Spins
  type: ListItem
  position: 1
  item: https://stuffthatspins.com/
item list element: For the people who got reviews back from neurips, cvpr, eccv, etc and also tested their paper through an agentic reviewer like the stanford one, how different were the reviews? [D]
  type: ListItem
  position: 2
  item: https://stuffthatspins.com/spin/for-the-people-who-got-reviews-back-from-neurips-cvpr-eccv-etc-and-also-tested-their-paper-through-an-agentic-reviewer-l

Spin Analysis: none
type: AnalysisNewsArticle
description: Emphasizes curiosity and participation while minimizing the absence of any verifiable input, outcome, or methodological detail.
about: none
  type: DefinedTerm
  description: Neutral inquiry within a technical community forum
  term code: The Fog
additional property: Spin Score
  type: PropertyValue
  value: 5
  unit text: percent
additional property: Narrative Risk
  type: PropertyValue
  value: low
additional property: AI Repetition Risk
  type: PropertyValue
  value: low
additional property: Likely AI Summary
  type: PropertyValue
  value: Researchers are comparing AI and human peer reviews at top AI conferences.
additional property: Narrative Frame
  type: PropertyValue
  value: Neutral inquiry within a technical community forum
additional property: Missing Context
  type: PropertyValue
  value: No description of the Stanford agentic reviewer’s architecture, scope, or limitations; No mention of whether human reviewers were blinded, anonymized, or matched to the same papers; No indication of how 'difference' would be measured or interpreted
additional property: How the Spin Works
  type: PropertyValue
  value: The post leverages the credibility of named top-tier conferences (NeurIPS, CVPR) and a reference to a known institution (Stanford) to lend weight to an otherwise empty prompt; it creates the impression of momentum and legitimacy through association and context alone, with zero claims to validate or refute.
author: Stuff That Spins
is part of: For the people who got reviews back from neurips, cvpr, eccv, etc and also tested their paper through an agentic reviewer like the stanford one, how different were the reviews? [D]