Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions
1–10 of 442 posts
Re: Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions
#2The legal system has a word to describe AI "slop" --- it is called "negligence".
And as the remedy starts being applied (aka "liability"), the enthusiasm for AI will start to wane.
I wouldn't be surprised if some businesses ban the use of AI --- starting with law firms.
Re: Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions
#3The legal system has a word to describe AI "slop" --- it is called "negligence". And as the remedy starts being applied (aka "liability"), the enthusiasm for AI will start to wane. I wouldn't be surprised if some businesses ban the use of AI --- starting with law firms.
I applaud your use of triple dashes to avoid automatic conversion to em dashes and being labeled an AI. Kudos!
Re: Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions
#4Can we just call them "lies" and "fabrications" which is what they are? If I write the same, you will call them "made up citations" and "academic dishonesty".
One can use AI to help them write without going all the way to having it generate facts and citations.
Re: Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions
#5Can we just call them "lies" and "fabrications" which is what they are? If I write the same, you will call them "made up citations" and "academic dishonesty". One can use AI to help them write without going all the way to having it generate facts and citations.
As long as the submissions are on behalf of humans we should. The humans should accept the consequences too.
Re: Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions
#6[deleted]
Re: Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions
#7Is the baseline assumption of this work that an erroneous citation is LLM hallucinated?
Did they run the checker across a body of papers before LLMs were available and verify that there were no citations in peer reviewed papers that got authors or titles wrong?
Re: Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions
#8It's going to be even worse than 50:
> Given that we've only scanned 300 out of 20,000 submissions, we estimate that we will find 100s of hallucinated papers in the coming days.
Re: Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions
#9Checking each citation one by one is quite critical in peer review, and of course checking a colleagues paper. I’ve never had to deal with AI slop, but you’ll definitely see something cited for the wrong reason. And just the other day during the final typesetting of a paper of mine I found the journal had messed up a citation (same journal / author but wrong work!)
Re: Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions
#10It's going to be even worse than 50: > Given that we've only scanned 300 out of 20,000 submissions, we estimate that we will find 100s of hallucinated papers in the coming days.
20,000 submissions to a single conference? That is nuts