Core Insights - The article discusses the prevalence of AI-generated content in the review process for ICLR 2026, highlighting significant statistics regarding the extent of AI involvement in both submissions and reviews [2][11]. Group 1: AI Usage in Submissions - A total of 39% of submitted papers utilized AI in some capacity as a writing assistant, with a notable correlation between higher AI usage and lower average scores [8]. - The breakdown of AI content in submissions shows that 61% of papers had 0-10% AI content, averaging a score of 4.36, while only 1% of papers with 90-100% AI content averaged a score of 2.9 [9]. Group 2: AI Usage in Review Comments - The analysis revealed that 21% of review comments were fully generated by AI, with these comments averaging 0.3 points higher than those written by humans [11]. - Review comments generated by AI were found to be 26% longer than those written by humans, indicating a trend towards more verbose AI-generated feedback [11]. Group 3: Statistical Analysis by Pangram Labs - Pangram Labs conducted a detailed analysis of AI usage in the ICLR 2026 review process, employing advanced models to quantify AI involvement [5][10]. - The study found that the average confidence level for fully AI-generated reviews was slightly higher, although the difference was minimal and should be interpreted cautiously [18]. Group 4: Community Response and Official Actions - The ICLR 2026 organizing committee acknowledged the issue of low-quality reviews generated by AI and is considering appropriate measures to address it [25]. - Suggestions from the community included removing poor reviews and automatically flagging reviewers who fail to meet their responsibilities [26].