Confused About Wildly Polarizing ICML Reviews—Will the AC Even Care?
ICML 審查意見超兩極化,我的論文到底過不過得了?
Just finished rebuttals and got some wild swings in my scores. Started with 5(4), 4(4), 4(3), 2(4)—pretty messy already. After rebuttals: 5(4), 5(4), 5(3), 2(5). So now I'm at 4.25 average with confidence at 4. The two reviewers who gave 4s both bumped to 5s with solid justifications, but that one stubborn 2 went UP to a 5 in confidence while staying at 2. Has anyone dealt with this kind of split decision? Is this actually borderline, or does it all come down to whether the AC is having a good day?
paper reviewpolarizing scoresrebuttalconference submissionreviewer disagreement
Related Articles
OpinionsRead
OpenAI Livestream
OpenAI is hosting a livestream event. Details about the specific announcements, product launches, or demonstrations will be revealed during the broadcast.
The last time OpenAI did an unannounced livestream, they dropped GPT-4 Turbo and changed pricing overnight
OpinionsRead
ChatGPT Images 2.0
OpenAI is launching ChatGPT Images 2.0 with major upgrades to image generation capabilities. Watch the livestream announcement at https://openai.com/live/
OpenAI is positioning this as a direct competitor to established image generation tools, suggesting they're confident enough to challenge the current market leaders
OpinionsRead
The "just wait 6 months" argument from 2025 survived exactly one iteration
Throughout 2025 the standard response to any complaint about an LLM was some version of "just wait 3-6 months, the next generation will handle this effortlessly." The argument was everywhere. Every limitation was temporary, every missing capability was a few iterations away, every autonomous agent demo was a preview of imminent reality.
It's April 2026 now and worth checking how that held up.
On r/ClaudeAI this week there's a long thread about Opus 4.7 where multiple users argue it's a regress
OpinionsRead
Mistral Medium 3.5 on AMD Strix Halo: Painfully Slow (Plan for Overnight Runs)
Someone actually tested Mistral Medium 3.5 on AMD's new Strix Halo chip, and the results are... not great. For a 48k-token prompt with 4k thinking tokens, it took about 2 hours just to get an answer about code architecture. Yeah, you read that right—two hours. The takeaway: if you want to run this locally on Strix Halo, queue it up before bed. The technical setup involved heavy optimization (Q5_K_XL quantization, GPU acceleration with -ngl 999, cache reuse), but even with all that tuning, it's still a crawl. Not exactly the "instant local AI" dream, but hey, at least it works.