I'm curious about your thoughts on these,
as far as I've seen most of the comments are nitpicking about "missing ablations" while some comments seem to be relevant.
[link] [comments]
How strongly do you believe LLM judges on the for the ML papers?? [D]
Reddit r/MachineLearning / 4/30/2026
💬 OpinionSignals & Early TrendsIdeas & Deep Analysis
Key Points
- The post asks readers how strongly they believe LLMs (large language model judges) should be trusted to evaluate ML papers.
- The discussion highlights a contrast between commenters who focus on methodological gaps like missing ablations and those who provide more substantive critiques.
- The author is seeking perspectives on whether LLM-based judgment aligns with human expectations of rigor and relevance in ML research evaluation.
submitted by /u/BetterbeBattery
[link] [comments]
Related Articles
Big Tech firms are accelerating AI investments and integration, while regulators and companies focus on safety and responsible adoption.
Dev.to
15 Lead Magnet Ideas That Actually Convert in 2026
Dev.to
Local AI vs. Cloud AI: When to Use Which (A Developer's Guide)
Dev.to
New case alleging chatbot involvement in mass murder: Bigger disaster, smaller AI involvement
Reddit r/artificial
I built a sovereign voice layer that routes to 11 AI providers — here's the architecture
Dev.to
