No, the OP is right in this case. Did you read TFA? It was "peer reviewed".
> Worryingly, each of these submissions has already been reviewed by 3-5 peer experts, most of whom missed the fake citation(s). This failure suggests that some of these papers might have been accepted by ICLR without any intervention. Some had average ratings of 8/10, meaning they would almost certainly have been published.
If the peer reviewers can't be bothered to do the basics, then there is literally no point to peer review, which is fully independent of the author who uses or doesn't use AI tools.
As far as I know none of them manufacture anything resembling a replacement for a Xeon, which is relevant to national security because those are uses in military applications.
I'm surprised to see on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_Technology that Microchip does in fact have fabs. I thought it was fabless! Its fabs are in the US, but the assembly and test facilities are all across the Pacific.
Yeah, this is not a new concept and I remember seeing one of his videos that explains this concept really well. Here the relevant video from 9 years ago for those uninitiated:
No please don't do this. I have lost count how many times I tried to follow a link only to get a 404 page. If there is an issue where the app gives the user an error, show the error details & context directly and list the possible mitigation steps right then and there.
A URL with specific content is just another thing that now needs to be maintained along with the code and failure modes.
This is easily bypassed and/or worked around. What is to prevent an indefinite investigation? The FBI D.B Cooper case was open for decades, for example.
The flash is QSPI, so its not really on die flash with a real flash controller. There is some QSPI cache but it’s really a band-aid solution to not having the real thing. People around the net don't seem to understand the difference and it can be very misleading.
I use "Todo Tree" in VS Code which is one of my mandatory extensions wherever I go. Super useful for not only tag highlighting, but as a general bookmark system inside the codebase.
> Worryingly, each of these submissions has already been reviewed by 3-5 peer experts, most of whom missed the fake citation(s). This failure suggests that some of these papers might have been accepted by ICLR without any intervention. Some had average ratings of 8/10, meaning they would almost certainly have been published.
If the peer reviewers can't be bothered to do the basics, then there is literally no point to peer review, which is fully independent of the author who uses or doesn't use AI tools.