Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

gptzero.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 528 posts

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#31

Post by Proziam »

oofbey wrote: post #10
qwertox wrote: post #3

It would be great if those scientists who use AI without disclosing it get fucked for life.

Harsh sentiment. Pretty soon every knowledge worker will use AI every day. Should people disclose spellcheckers powered by AI? Disclosing is not useful. Being careful in how you use it and checking work is what matters.

False equivalence. This isn't about "using AI" it's about having an AI pretend to do your job.

What people are pissed about is the fact their tax dollars fund fake research. It's just fraud, pure and simple. And fraud should be punished brutally, especially in these cases, because the long tail of negative effects produces enormous damage.

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#32

Post by reliabilityguy »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #5
cogman10 wrote: post #2

Yuck, this is going to really harm scientific research. There is already a problem with papers falsifying data/samples/etc, LLMs being able to put out plausible papers is just going to make it worse. On the bright side, maybe this will get the scientific community and science journalists to finally take reproducibility more seriously. I'd love to see future reporting that instead of saying "Research finds amazing che…

Have they solved the issue where papers that cite research already invalidated are still being cited?

Nope.

I am still reviewing papers that propose solutions based on a technique X, conveniently ignoring research from two years ago that shows that X cannot be used on its own. Both the paper I reviewed and the research showing X cannot be used are in the same venue!

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#34

Post by emil-lp »

tossandthrow wrote: post #17
jordanpg wrote: post #4

If these are so easy to identify, why not just incorporate some kind of screening into the early stages of peer review?

What makes you believe that are easy to identify?

One could require DOIs for each reference. That's both realistic to achieve and easy to verify.

Although then why not just cite existing papers for bogus reasons?

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#35

Post by Molitor5901 »

AI might just extinguish the entire paradigm of publish or perish. The sheer volume of papers makes it nearly impossible to properly decide which papers have merit, which are non-replicate and suspect, and which are just a desperate rush to publish. The entire practice needs to end.

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#36

Post by gcr »

cogman10 wrote: post #24
godzillabrennus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they solved the issue where papers that cite research already invalidated are still being cited?

AFAIK, no, but I could see there being cause to push citations to also cite the validations. It'd be good if standard practice turned into something like Paper A, by bob, bill, brad. Validated by Paper B by carol, clare, charlotte. or Paper A, by bob, bill, brad. Unvalidated.

Academics typically use citation count and popularity as a rough proxy for validation. It's certainly not perfect, but it is something that people think about. Semantic Scholar in particular is doing great work in this area, making it easy to see who cites who: https://www.semanticscholar.org/

Google Scholar's PDF reader extension turns every hyperlinked citation into a popout card that shows citation counts inline in the PDF: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/google-scholar-pdf-...

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#37

Post by geremiiah »

oofbey wrote: post #10
qwertox wrote: post #3

It would be great if those scientists who use AI without disclosing it get fucked for life.

Harsh sentiment. Pretty soon every knowledge worker will use AI every day. Should people disclose spellcheckers powered by AI? Disclosing is not useful. Being careful in how you use it and checking work is what matters.

What they are doing is plain cheating the system to get their 3 conference papers so they can get their $150k+ job at FAANG. It's plain cheating with no value.

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#38

Post by f311a »

cogman10 wrote: post #2

Yuck, this is going to really harm scientific research. There is already a problem with papers falsifying data/samples/etc, LLMs being able to put out plausible papers is just going to make it worse. On the bright side, maybe this will get the scientific community and science journalists to finally take reproducibility more seriously. I'd love to see future reporting that instead of saying "Research finds amazing che…

For ML/AI/Comp sci articles, providing reproducible code is a great option. Basically, PoC or GTFO.

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#39

Post by oofbey »

fisf wrote: post #25
oofbey wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harsh sentiment. Pretty soon every knowledge worker will use AI every day. Should people disclose spellcheckers powered by AI? Disclosing is not useful. Being careful in how you use it and checking work is what matters.

People are accountable for the results they produce using AI. So a scientist is responsible for made up sources in their paper, which is plain fraud.

I completely agree. But “disclosing the use of AI” doesn’t solve that one bit.

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#40

Post by vimda »

oofbey wrote: post #10
qwertox wrote: post #3

It would be great if those scientists who use AI without disclosing it get fucked for life.

Harsh sentiment. Pretty soon every knowledge worker will use AI every day. Should people disclose spellcheckers powered by AI? Disclosing is not useful. Being careful in how you use it and checking work is what matters.

"Pretty soon every knowledge worker will use AI every day" is a wild statement considering the reporting that most companies deploying AI solutions are seeing little to no benefit, but also, there's a pretty obvious gap between spell checkers and tools that generate large parts of the document for you
Post reply on HN