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

131–140 of 528 posts

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

#131

Post by agumonkey »

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…

I think, at least I hope, that a part of the LLM value will be to create their retirement for specific needs. Instead of asking it to solve any problem, restrict the space to a tool that can help you then reach your goal faster without the statistical nature of LLMs.

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

#132

Post by Sharlin »

freedomben wrote: post #96
depressionalt wrote: post #64

This 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!

Indeed. My son has been accused by bullshit AI detection as having used AI, and it has devastated his work quality. After being "disciplined" for using AI (when he didn't), he now intentionally tries to "dumb down" his writing so that it doesn't sound so much like AI. The result is he writes much worse. What a shitty, shitty outcome. I've even found myself leaving typos and things in (even on sites like HN) because i…

It's almost as if this whole LLM stuff wasn't a net benefit to the society after all.

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

#133

Post by geokon »

StableAlkyne wrote: post #82
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…

> I'd love to see future reporting that instead of saying "Research finds amazing chemical x which does y" you see "Researcher reproduces amazing results for chemical x which does y. First discovered by z". Most people (that I talk to, at least) in science agree that there's a reproducibility crisis. The challenge is there really isn't a good way to incentivize that work. Fundamentally (unless you're independent weal…

usually you reproduce previous research as a byproduct of doing something novel "on top" of the previous result. I dont really see the problem with the current setup.

sometimes you can just do something new and assume the previous result, but thats more the exception. youre almost always going to at least in part reproducr the previous one. and if issues come up, its often evident.

thats why citations work as a good proxy. X number of people have done work based around this finding and nobody has seen a clear problem

theres a problem of people fabricating and fudging data and not making their raw data available ("on request" or with not enough meta data to be useful) which wastes everyones time and almost never leads to negative consequences for the authors

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

#134

Post by eichin »

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.

"responsible for made up sources" leads to the hilarious idea that if you cite a paper that doesn't exist, you're now obliged to write that paper (getting it retroactively published might be a challenge though)

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

#136

Post by mlmonkey »

gcr wrote: post #28

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…

Why not run every submitted paper through GPTZero (before sending to reviewers) and summarily reject any paper with a hallucination?

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

#137

Post by mike_hearn »

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…

Reproducibility is overrated and if you could wave a wand to make all papers reproducible tomorrow, it wouldn't fix the problem. It might even make it worse.

https://blog.plan99.net/replication-studies-cant-fix-science...

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

#138

Post by Sharlin »

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.

In general we're pretty good at drawing a line between purely editorial stuff like using a spellchecker, or even the services a professional editor (no need to acknowledge), and independent intellectual contribution (must be acknowledged). There's no slippery slope.

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

#139

Post by [deleted] »

StableAlkyne wrote: post #82
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…

> I'd love to see future reporting that instead of saying "Research finds amazing chemical x which does y" you see "Researcher reproduces amazing results for chemical x which does y. First discovered by z". Most people (that I talk to, at least) in science agree that there's a reproducibility crisis. The challenge is there really isn't a good way to incentivize that work. Fundamentally (unless you're independent weal…

[deleted]

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

#140

Post by gcr »

mlmonkey wrote: post #136
gcr wrote: post #28

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…

Why not run every submitted paper through GPTZero (before sending to reviewers) and summarily reject any paper with a hallucination?

That's how GPTZero wants to situate themselves.

Who would pay them? Conference organizers are already unpaid and undestaffed, and most conferences aren't profitable.

I think rejections shouldn't be automatic. Sometimes there are just typos. Sometimes authors don't understand BibTeX. This needs to be done in a way that reduces the workload for reviewers.

One way of doing this would be for GPTZero to annotate each paper during the review step. If reviewers could review a version of each paper with yellow-highlighted "likely-hallucinated" references in the bibliography, then they'd bring it up in their review and they'd know to be on their guard for other probably LLM-isms. If there's only a couple likely typos in the references, then reviewers could understand that, and if they care about it, they'd bring it up in their reviews and the author would have the usual opportunity to rebut.

I don't know if GPTZero is willing to provide this service "for free" to the academic community, but if they are, it's probably worth bringing up at the next PAMI-TC meeting for CVPR.

Post reply on HN