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

161–170 of 528 posts

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

#161

Post by mikkupikku »

WarmWash wrote: post #67
geremiiah wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Confront the culprit and ask for their side; you'll just get some sob story about how busy they are and how they were only using the AI to check their grammar and they just don't know how the whole thing ended up fabricated... Waste of time. Just blacklist these people, they're no better than any other scammer.

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

#162

Post by captainbland »

What's wild is so many of these are from prestigious universities. MIT, Princeton, Oxford and Cambridge are all on there. It must be a terrible time to be an academic who's getting outcompeted by this slop because somebody from an institution with a better name submitted it.

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

#163

Post by graemep »

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…

> you have to measure productivity somehow,

No, you do not have to. You give people with the skills and interest in doing research the money. You need to ensure its spent correctly, that is all. People will be motivated by wanting to build a reputation and the intrinsic reward of the work

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

#165

Post by poszlem »

vld_chk wrote: post #148
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…

In my mental model, the fundamental problem of reproducibility is that scientists have very hard time to find a penny to fund such research. No one wants to grant “hey I need $1m and 2 years to validate the paper from last year which looks suspicious”. Until we can change how we fund science on the fundamental level; how we assign grants — it will be indeed very hard problem to deal with.

I often think we should movefrom peer review as "certification" to peer review as "triage", with replication determining how much trust and downstream weight a result earns over time.

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

#166

Post by jklinger410 »

paulmist wrote: post #98
jklinger410 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the content of the papers themselves are not necessarily invalidated. For example, authors may have given an LLM a partial description of a citation and asked the LLM to produce bibtex (a formatted reference) Maybe I'm overreacting, but this feels like an insanely biased response. They found the one potentially innocuous reason and latched onto that as a way to hand-wave the entire problem away. Science already had…

Isn't disqualifying X months of potentially great research due to a misformed, but existing reference harsh? I don't think they'd be okay with references that are actually made up.

When your entire job is confirming that science is valid, I expect a little more humility when it turns out you've missed a critical aspect.

How did these 100 sources even get through the validation process?

> Isn't disqualifying X months of potentially great research due to a misformed, but existing reference harsh?

It will serve as a reminder not to cut any corners.

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

#167

Post by autoexec »

doug_durham wrote: post #109

Getting papers published is now more about embellishing your CV versus a sincere desire to present new research. I see this everywhere at every level. Getting a paper published anywhere is a checkbox in completing your resume. As an industry we need to stop taking this into consideration when reviewing candidates or deciding pay. In some sense it has become an anti-signal.

It'd be nice if there were a dedicated journal for papers published just because you have to publish for your CV or to get your degree. That way people can keep publishing for the sake of publishing, but you could see at a glance what the deal was.

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

#169

Post by azan_ »

heliumtera wrote: post #157
azan_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it only led to all advancements in the history of humanity, what a joke!

I am sure all advancements in the history of humanity was properly peer reviewed! Including coca cola and Linux!

If you wanted to attack peer review you should've attacked peer review, not entire science. And if "muh science" was some kind of code for peer review then it's not my fault that you are awful at articulating your point. It's still not clear what the hell do you mean.

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

#170

Post by direwolf20 »

gcr wrote: post #102
pessimizer wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hallucinations aren't mistakes, they're fabrications. The two are probably referred to by the same word in some languages. Institutions can choose an arbitrary approach to mistakes; maybe they don't mind a lot of them because they want to take risks and be on the bleeding edge. But any flexible attitude towards fabrications is simply corruption. The connected in-crowd will get mercy and the outgroup will get the hamm…

Fabrications carry intent to decieve. I don't think hallucinations necessarily do. If anything, they're a matter of negligence, not deception. Think of it this way: if I wanted to commit pure academic fraud maliciously, I wouldn't make up a fake reference. Instead, I'd find an existing related paper and merely misrepresent it to support my own claims. That way, the deception is much harder to discover and I'd have pl…

Generating a paper with an LLM is already academic fraud. You, the fraudster, are trying to optimize your fraud-to-effort ratio which is why you don't bother to look for existing papers to mis-cite.
Post reply on HN