Dr. Robert M Flight<p>Saw a Reddit post about a "Peer Review LLM", and I decided to test it with one of my own current preprints to see how good it actually is. </p><p>As I expected, it's rubbish, at least in the context of what one should actually expect from a peer review, because an LLM doesn't actually *think*.</p><p>You can see it's output here:</p><p><a href="https://bgpt.pro/?q=Paper%20Review%3A%20Information-Content-Informed%20Kendall-tau%20Correlation%20Methodology%3A%20Interpreting%20Missing%20Values%20as%20Useful%20Information" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">bgpt.pro/?q=Paper%20Review%3A%</span><span class="invisible">20Information-Content-Informed%20Kendall-tau%20Correlation%20Methodology%3A%20Interpreting%20Missing%20Values%20as%20Useful%20Information</span></a></p><p>/1</p><p><a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/bioinformatics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>bioinformatics</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/LLM" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>LLM</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/academia" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>academia</span></a> <a href="https://mastodon.social/tags/PublishOrPerish" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>PublishOrPerish</span></a></p>