Expert feedback lays the foundation of rigorous research. However, the rapid growth of scholarly production and intricate knowledge specialization challenge the conventional scientific feedback mechanisms. High-quality peer reviews are increasingly difficult to obtain. Researchers who are more junior or from under-resourced settings have especially hard times getting timely feedback. With the breakthrough of large language models (LLM) such as GPT-4, there is growing interest in using LLMs to generate scientific feedback on research manuscripts. However, the utility of LLM-generated feedback has not been systematically studied. To address this gap, we created an automated pipeline using GPT-4 to provide comments on the full PDFs of scientific papers. We evaluated the quality of GPT-4's feedback through two large-scale studies. We first quantitatively compared GPT-4's generated feedback with human peer reviewer feedback in 15 Nature family journals (3,096 papers in total) and the ICLR machine learning conference (1,709 papers). The overlap in the points raised by GPT-4 and by human reviewers (average overlap 30.85% for Nature journals, 39.23% for ICLR) is comparable to the overlap between two human reviewers (average overlap 28.58% for Nature journals, 35.25% for ICLR). The overlap between GPT-4 and human reviewers is larger for the weaker papers. We then conducted a prospective user study with 308 researchers from 110 US institutions in the field of AI and computational biology to understand how researchers perceive feedback generated by our GPT-4 system on their own papers. Overall, more than half (57.4%) of the users found GPT-4 generated feedback helpful/very helpful and 82.4% found it more beneficial than feedback from at least some human reviewers. While our findings show that LLM-generated feedback can help researchers, we also identify several limitations.

Social media platforms empower us in several ways, from information dissemination to consumption. While these platforms are useful in promoting citizen journalism, public awareness etc., they have misuse potentials. Malicious users use them to disseminate hate-speech, offensive content, rumor etc. to gain social and political agendas or to harm individuals, entities and organizations. Often times, general users unconsciously share information without verifying it, or unintentionally post harmful messages. Some of such content often get deleted either by the platform due to the violation of terms and policies, or users themselves for different reasons, e.g., regrets. There is a wide range of studies in characterizing, understanding and predicting deleted content. However, studies which aims to identify the fine-grained reasons (e.g., posts are offensive, hate speech or no identifiable reason) behind deleted content, are limited. In this study we address this gap, by identifying deleted tweets, particularly within the Arabic context, and labeling them with a corresponding fine-grained disinformation category. We then develop models that can predict the potentiality of tweets getting deleted, as well as the potential reasons behind deletion. Such models can help in moderating social media posts before even posting.

It's been roughly a year since I posted my viral "AI winter is well on its way" post and like I promised I'll periodically post an update on the general AI landscape. I posted one some 6 months ago and now is time for another one. And there has been a lot of stuff going on lately and none of it has changed my mind - the AI bubble is bursting. And as with every bubble bursting we are in a blowoff phase in which those who have the most to lose are pulling out the most outrageous confidence pumping pieces they could think of, the ultimate strategy to con some more naive people to give them money. But let's go over what has been going on.