Agentic AI and Peer Review

Elias_Eythorsson:

I wonder whether the model moving forward should be screening with AI and confirmation/ overread by human reviewers

Can someone explain the benefit of what is at best, a lossy compression algorithm doing an initial review? There are a host of assumptions that go unchecked in any of these discussions.

A collection of global research mathematicians have signed and released the Leiden Declaration, that discusses the limitations of LLMs in mathematics. Those insights could certainly be expanded to applied statistics.

Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics

Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics

This declaration calls for action to address the challenges posed by the use of artificial intelligence within mathematics research.

From the first item listed:

Current automated techniques can produce plausible but unreliable (or even incorrect) arguments which are difficult to distinguish from correct mathematical proofs. This applies not only to informal arguments, but also to formalizations, where the difficulty lies in the translation between computer-encoded and human presentations of concepts. These fast-moving developments put our present system of review under increasing pressure, jeopardizing our ability to implement traditional standards for the correctness, transparency, and independent verifiability of proof.

Here is a news report on the declaration with a target audience of physical scientists:

Phys.org – 2 Jun 26

Mathematicians say 'don't believe hype' on AI capabilities

Dozens of mathematicians signed a declaration Tuesday calling for the discipline to resist beating the drum for artificial intelligence developers.