Took me a while understand. So, the same person has both submitted their research article to the conference, and also acted as a reviewer for articles submitted by other people.
And if they in their review work have agreed to a "no LLM use" policy, but got exposed using LLMs anyway, then their submitted research article is desk rejected. Theoretically, someone could have submitted a stellar research article, but because they didn't follow agreed policy when reviewing other people's work, then also their research contribution is not welcome.
(At first I understood that innocent author's articles would have been rejected just because they happened to go to a bad reviewer. But this is not the case.)
Slightly more nuanced in that the reciprocal reviewer may have been essentially forced to sign despite having other commitments or may not have even been the lead contributor. Nowadays if a student submits a side project to a top-tier conference then it is required that if any authors have significant publication count in top-tier venues, then one must be a mandatory reviewer. Then one must sign that agreement. Students need to publish, much less so for me, where I really want to publish big innovations rather than increments, but now I get all these mandatory reviewer emails demanding I review for a conference because a student has my name on the paper and I'm the most senior, but I may have just seeded the idea or helped them in significant ways. However, many times those are not my passion projects and is just something a student did that I helped with, but now all AI conferences are demanding I review or hurt a student, where I'm the middle author.
But if anything, I think the whole anti-LLM review philosophy is wrong. If anything we need multiple deep background and research analyses of papers. So many papers are trash or are publishing what has already been done or are missing things. The volume of AI papers makes it impossible for a human alone to really critique work because hundreds of new papers come out a day.
I keep not learning how corrupt authorship of academic papers is. When I read papers, I imagine all the authors have been working away together in an office somewhere and they all wrote parts of the paper and all read it and all have a feeling of ownership of it and deeply understand the whole thing. But I forget how the only academic paper I ever had published was one that I never read and had no understanding of. All I did was give some technician-like advice to the actual author. It feels dirty and I sometimes regret accepting it but at the same time, the whole science world seems like it doesn't deserve honesty because everyone else is corrupt too.
Not hard to see why. Being an author helps your cv. Allowing you to be an author for tangential or minimal contribs can help keep good relations, especially if there are future options and financial things depending on having good relations. Putting a name on a paper costs nothing and nobody checks how big the contribution was. It's slightly dilutes the subjective authorship fraction of those who did the work, but sometimes the additional person also brings in a nice prestigious affiliation that even has a positive impact on how seriously the paper is taken... It's a game.
Is this really what happened? The post from the conference chairs is extremely confusing. Maybe my confusion is because I've never published in a conference with reciprocal reviewers and if I had this experience maybe the post would be very clear.
In any case, I had reached the same interpretation before reading your post, thinking that this is the only interpretation that could make any sense, but I'm still not convinced that this is what happened. Hopefully, no "innocent authors' articles were rejected because they happened to go to a bad reviewer".
This is true. A nuance often missed. Different rock (that is considerably worse in several ways, needs heavy fuel oil to be added to actually burn and has I think even higher co2 output per unit of energy) but kinda the same.
> and even permanent daylight time is far superior to changing clocks twice a year
This paper implies that for health, permanent standard time would be best, and permanent DST would be the worst. And even keeping the current clock-shifting would be better than permanent DST.
"The combination of DST and winter would therefore make the differences between body clocks and the social clock even worse and would negatively affect our health even more."
But I think the scientists have made a mistake in their communication: They focused too much arguing against the clock-shifts, and didn't put enough effort to communicate why also permanent DST is a bad choice.
> Quantum physics is tricky because it frequently doesn't agree with our physical intuition.
Quantum physics tricky for two separate reasons.
(i) The mathematical theory (Schrödinger equation, wave function, operators, probabilities) is solid and well-defined, but may feel unintuitive, as you say.
(ii) But quantum mechanics is also an incomplete theory. Even if you learn to be at peace with the unintuitive aspects of the mathematical theory, the measurement problem remains an unsolved problem.
"The Schrödinger equation describes quantum systems but does not describe their measurement."
"Quantum theory offers no dynamical description of the "collapse" of the wave function"
> I’m probably way off base and I’m probably missing some insights that I could get by going to school
A school would usually teach the "shut up (about philosophy) and calculate" approach. These philosophical problems about the meaning of quantum mechanics have been with us for 100 years, and mainstream physics sees them as too hard or even intractable, and thus as waste of time.
Suspend for 6 months from a conference that is held yearly?