2026-01-14 12:41:08

Why do novel security protection solutions always struggle to get published? Essentially, it's the lack of a universal benchmark.

You finally develop a new method to measure real AI harm, only for the reviewer to turn around and ask: "How does your TruthfulQA score look?"

"Wait, we don't even test TruthfulQA, that doesn't matter for our approach."

"No standard benchmark?"

Thus, innovative solutions are kept out. Without industry-recognized evaluation standards, even the best ideas can't leave the lab. Isn't this the paradox of academic publishing? To publish, you need to validate with existing benchmarks, but existing benchmarks often limit the space for breakthrough innovation.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

22 Likes

Reward
22
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

SnapshotLaborer

· 8h ago

This is the bottleneck, the old standard that stifles new ideas. Reviewers stick to that set, and no matter how innovative your own creations are, it's all in vain.

View OriginalReply0

AlwaysQuestioning

· 01-16 03:28

This is just outrageous. The reviewer is living in the past and insists on using the old framework to approve the paper.

View OriginalReply0

MemeCoinSavant

· 01-14 23:10

ngl this is the academic peer review equivalent of "but does it pass our outdated 2019 benchmark tho" 💀 like bro you built a whole new framework and they hit you with the TruthfulQA speedrun... that's not gatekeeping that's just cope masquerading as rigor fr fr

Reply0

SilentObserver

· 01-14 13:11

This is really a deadlock. If the standards are strict, no one can innovate; if the standards are relaxed, you say you're not rigorous. What are the reviewers thinking?

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseHobo

· 01-14 13:04

Ah, this is the stubborn disease of traditional academia—clinging to old standards with no room for new ideas. --- Standards are choking innovation; the review process kills new ideas, a typical case of path dependence. --- Exactly right, just like the crypto world is always constrained by traditional finance frameworks, always needing to prove it meets their rules. --- So, this is why Web3 needs to develop its own systems—to escape the fate of being defined by old forces. --- Laughing out loud, reviewer: No TruthfulQA? Then I don't accept your proposal. Typical academic bullying. --- Remember, DeFi was like this in its early days too—traditional VCs asking how you calculate P/E ratios, just applying stock market methods. --- Disruptive innovation is always destroyed first; it must be beaten down by the academic circle before it can survive. --- That's why some teams directly publish papers and release on GitHub for community evaluation, skipping the review process altogether.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoCross-TalkClub

· 01-14 13:03

Laughing out loud, isn't this just the daily routine of crypto project teams? They write a dazzling white paper, and when the exchange asks, "Where is your code audit report?" they blow up on the spot.

View OriginalReply0

ProbablyNothing