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
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…
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]
NeurIPS, CVPR, LLM reviewer, peer review, academic evaluation
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
Emphasizes curiosity and participation while minimizing the absence of any verifiable input, outcome, or methodological detail.
Neutral inquiry within a technical community forum
Researchers are comparing AI and human peer reviews at top AI conferences.
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
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.