41–50 of 528 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All 3 of these should be categorized as fraud, and punished criminally.
criminally feels excessive?
To me, it's no different than stealing a car or tricking an old lady into handing over her fidelity account. You are stealing, and society says stealing is a criminal act.
NeurIPS leadership doesn’t think hallucinated references are necessarily disqualifying; see the full article from Fortune for a statement from them: https://archive.ph/yizHN > When reached for comment, the NeurIPS board shared the following statement: “The usage of LLMs in papers at AI conferences is rapidly evolving, and NeurIPS is actively monitoring developments. In previous years, we piloted policies regarding th…
In fairness, NeurIPS is just saying out loud what everyone already knows. Most citations in published science are useless junk: it’s either mutual back-scratching to juice h-index, or it’s the embedded and pointless practice of overcitation, like “Human beings need clean water to survive (Franz, 2002)”.
Really, hallucinated citations are just forcing a reckoning which has been overdue for a while now.
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.
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.
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.
It’s a problem. The previous regime prior to publishing-mania was essentially a clubby game of reputation amongst peers based on cocktail party socialization.
The publication metrics came out of the harder sciences, I believe, and then spread to the softest of humanities. It was always easy to game a bit if you wanted to try, but now it’s trivial to defeat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
NeurIPS leadership doesn’t think hallucinated references are necessarily disqualifying; see the full article from Fortune for a statement from them: https://archive.ph/yizHN > When reached for comment, the NeurIPS board shared the following statement: “The usage of LLMs in papers at AI conferences is rapidly evolving, and NeurIPS is actively monitoring developments. In previous years, we piloted policies regarding th…