Wow! They're literally submitting references to papers by Firstname Lastname, John Doe and Jane Smith and nobody is noticing or punishing them.
[flagged]
Yes, it only led to all advancements in the history of humanity, what a joke!
GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
61–70 of 528 posts
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it common for peer reviewers to check references? Somehow I thought they mostly focused on whether the experiment looked reasonable and the conclusions followed.
In journal publications it is, but without DOIs it's difficult. In conference publications, it's less common. Conference publications (like NEURips) is treated as announcement of results, not verified.
Nobody in ML or AI is verifying all your references. Reviewers will point out if you miss a super related work, but that's it. This is especially true with the recent (last two decades?) inflation in citation counts. You regularly have papers with 50+ references for all kinds of claims and random semirelated work. The citation culture is really uninspiring.
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#63It 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.
nice job moving the goalpost from "hallucinated the research/data" to "spellchecker error"
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#64This is nice and all, but what repercussion does GPTZero get when their bullshit AI detection hallucinates a student using AI? And when that student receives academic discipline because of it?
Many such cases of this. More than 100!
They claim to have custom detection for GPT-5, Gemini, and Claude. They're making that up!
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#65This suggests that nobody was screening this papers in the first place—so is it actually significant that people are using LLMs in a setting without meaningful oversight? These clearly aren't being peer-reviewed, so there's no natural check on LLM usage (which is different than what we see in work published in journals).
When I was reviewing such papers, I didn't bother checking that 30+ citations were correctly indexed. I focused on the article itself, and maybe 1 or 2 citations that are important. That's it. For most citations, they are next to an argument that I know is correct, so why would I bother checking. What else do you expect? My job was to figure out if the article ideas are novel and interesting, not if they got all their citations right.
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#66It 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.
Maybe? There's certainly a push to force the perception of inevitability.
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#67Earlier 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.
We are only looking at one side of the equation here, in this whole thread.
This feels a bit like the "LED stoplights shouldn't be used because they don't melt snow" argument.
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#68NeurIPS 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…
I think a _single_ instance of an LLM hallucination should be enough to retract the whole paper and ban further submissions.
I dunno about banning them, humans without LLMs make mistakes all the time, but I would definitely place them under much harder scrutiny in the future.
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#69[dead]
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#70It would be great if those scientists who use AI without disclosing it get fucked for life.
> It would be great if those scientists who use AI without disclosing it get fucked for life.
There need to be dis-incentives for sloppy work. There is a tension between quality and quantity in almost every product. Unfortunately academia has become a numbers-game with paper-mills.