Here's one, by, well, me. minorfree.github.io/Clement/
@ccanonne.github.ioClément Canonne
@ccanonne.github.io
Senior Lecturer #USydCompSci at the University of Sydney. Postdocs IBM Research and Stanford; PhD at Columbia. Converts ☕ into puns: sometimes theorems. He/him.
@ccanonne.github.io
@sydneycompsci.bsky.socialReposted by @ccanonne.github.ioIt’s time for our annual recruitment at the Faculty of Engineering at #USyd! Join our award-winning collegiate School of #ComputerScience as we surge into this new era of Computing education and research.
Deadline: ⏰ Monday, November 30 (Sydney)
@ccanonne.github.ioMagnifique. Merci.
@geomblog.bsky.socialReposted by @ccanonne.github.ioA call to action for senior TCS researchers by @ccanonne.github.io
@ccanonne.github.ioThank you! It had been bothering me for a while.
@benjaminpope.bsky.socialReposted by @ccanonne.github.ioA few free tickets still going for Astronomy on Tap this Tuesday night at the Crows Nest Hotel! Come see some fun informal talks on astronomy and have some drinks!
@ccanonne.github.ioReposted by @ccanonne.github.ioI wrote a blog post on "TCS, AI, and the Adults in the Room," addressed to the senior researchers and established academics in our field: minorfree.github.io/Clement/
Thanks to @hunglv.bsky.social for lending me his blog!
@ccanonne.github.ioI am much more optimistic than you are, though I do agree systemic changes are needed. And these won't happen if the established academics don't push for them, instead of whining and howling to the skies about the end of their world!
@ccanonne.github.ioShield them *during a transition period*. Quite an important distinction. But to your point: *if* someone is convinced (I am not) that there is no future in their field (again, this is *not* my view) then accepting new PhD students to be trained in this field would be doing them a disservice.
@ccanonne.github.ioI looked into it, and I hope the "Meta" version is a good platform for this. If it doesn't pan out and the post gets closed, I'll have to reassess where to do it... cstheory.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3130/13319
@ccanonne.github.ioHere's said blog post: bsky.app/profile/ccan...
@ccanonne.github.ioPDF version available as well, linked on the blog:
📄 "TCS, AI, and the Adults in the Room"
minorfree.github.io/assets/figs/... [PDF]
Thanks to Sepehr Assadi, Sasho Nikolov (@thesasho.bsky.social), and Omer Reingold for very helpful feedback on earlier versions of this post.
@ccanonne.github.ioI wrote a blog post on "TCS, AI, and the Adults in the Room," addressed to the senior researchers and established academics in our field: minorfree.github.io/Clement/
Thanks to @hunglv.bsky.social for lending me his blog!
@ccanonne.github.ioWell: more people are coerced into reviewing, more motivation to use AI in reviews+less confidence in peer-review, and so on :) As I said, mandatory reviewing sounds to me like a very bad and self-defeating solution to the problem ML conferences have (too many submissions)
@ccanonne.github.ioReposted by @ccanonne.github.ioPreparing a blog post, and as a side product I wrote some short thoughts on AI in reviewing, in TCS and beyond.
![AI in Reviewing.
I have, of course, my own opinions about many other points. One is about AI in reviewing. Even ignoring the ethical or copyright issues (they exist), or the cost (there is one!) [If each thorough review costs even $10 in tokens for a conference receiving 1,000 submissions, who's fronting the $10k? That's a conservative cost, and even that can make a nice hole in a TCS conference budget.], said opinion boils down to the following:
Assessing papers, results, and their interest to our research community *is our job*, pretty much by definition of *peer* review, and offloading it to LLMs is at best a slippery slope.
By "slippery slope," I mean that we are human, and we're all busy. Once AI reviews start appearing, "only about technical correctness" and "absolutely not about gauging interest and novelty," it's a matter of $k$ conference iterations, for a very small non-negative integer $k$, before most or all reviewers entirely delegate `gauging interest and novelty" to the LLM output, even without fully realizing it. After all, *we're all busy*.
(Now, if the argument is that LLMs are better at checking correctness, then let the authors run their work through an LLM and send the output as a cover letter or appendix. [This has potential issues, which would need to be addressed first: e.g., that of uniform access to the same models for everyone.] And if you don't trust the authors and are afraid they could be malicious in doing so... well, I think we have bigger problems as a community, then.) The key point though is that nobody *forces* anyone to be on a Program Committee, or to be a (sub)reviewer. If you'd rather not do the job and don't want to actually read the papers, well, *you can just say no!* It's OK! Others do!](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:ac6qioenkpl3jmmnib3tpbhb/bafkreihjx6ixpowbrf5prtay74xluhdd2cckbtbwpb57lefcpub7fxbyxi@jpeg)
@bachfrancis.bsky.socialReposted by @ccanonne.github.ioThe one and only Michael Jordan was interviewed last week by the French newspaper Libération. Here is an English translation. Enjoy!
www.di.ens.fr/~fbach/MJord...
@h4n1in.bsky.socialReposted by @ccanonne.github.ioThoughts: Given the recent advance in math, many "standard" (e.g., number-theoretic / lattice) assumptions are threatened. We need public-key encryption (and other crypto) with *universal* security --- if *any* secure PKE exists, our PKE is secure. (1/2)
@ccanonne.github.ioI don't see ICLR as TCS, tbh, and also I think that policy is wrong. (But even then, my comment stands, as technically nobody forces anyone to submit a paper to ICLR if they'd rather not.)
@ccanonne.github.io(this won't make it to the blog post itself, which is on a related topic, but with a near-orthogonal focus)
@ccanonne.github.ioPreparing a blog post, and as a side product I wrote some short thoughts on AI in reviewing, in TCS and beyond.