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

I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

geospatialml.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 181 posts

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#41

Post by wombatpm »

nneonneo wrote: post #2

At this point, in the field of AI research: - papers are written by AI (as pointed out in this article, and as obvious to anyone who spends a while actually reading recent AI research) - papers are reviewed by AI (NeurIPS is doing an AI assisted review experiment - https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/ai-reviewing-experiment - and I feel the trend is moving towards AI reviewers whether we like it or not) - papers are…

It’s going to go back to the old boys club where personal connections between research groups and institutions will matter more.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#42

Post by BobbyTables2 »

boplicity wrote: post #17
jsrozner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk if we're automating humans out of the publishing loop as much as rapidly automating the production of crap. I had a very similar experience reviewing for EMNLP recently. We are nowhere near AI being able to judge the quality of research (in fact, one might reasonably state that even most humans can't really judge the quality of research). Most things in society are not like math: we can't automate (via verificati…

> draconian social scoring This is a legitimate question: should people have reputations? Should their behavior be made more visible publicly, both good and bad? How? In a small contained society, where consequences are more directly affecting individuals immedately, these questions don't need to be asked, because they're inherantly answered. We now are a society with billions of people, and dire consequences sometim…

Isn’t China doing something like this ?

Wonder if it could degrade to something worse than the status quo where reputations are falsely tarnished by competitors purely as a weapon to get ahead…

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#43

Post by totetsu »

nneonneo wrote: post #2

At this point, in the field of AI research: - papers are written by AI (as pointed out in this article, and as obvious to anyone who spends a while actually reading recent AI research) - papers are reviewed by AI (NeurIPS is doing an AI assisted review experiment - https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/ai-reviewing-experiment - and I feel the trend is moving towards AI reviewers whether we like it or not) - papers are…

I have been rolling over the idea of “reasoning deserts” in my head, akin to food deserts. Places where economic calculations lead to only a facsimile of the real thing being provided, without the actual components necessary for human health, wellbeing and flourishing.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#44

Post by SecretDreams »

nneonneo wrote: post #2

At this point, in the field of AI research: - papers are written by AI (as pointed out in this article, and as obvious to anyone who spends a while actually reading recent AI research) - papers are reviewed by AI (NeurIPS is doing an AI assisted review experiment - https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/ai-reviewing-experiment - and I feel the trend is moving towards AI reviewers whether we like it or not) - papers are…

> We are very rapidly automating humans out of the academic publication loop here

It's a sad thing. But the monetization and enshitification of journal publications over the decade or so, even prior to AI, certainly has not helped this trend.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#45

Post by thaumasiotes »

podocarp wrote: post #40
dghlsakjg wrote: post #5

This is a side effect of academia never taking open accessibility to papers and journals seriously. If all these papers were not gatekept by journals, it would be trivially easy to validate at least the existence of cited papers and quotes.

I don't think it's academia not taking it seriously, more like these publishers are just coasting on brand name and trying to milk every cent out of it. Peer review is essentially being a Reddit mod or something, you get nothing out of it but karma or a sticker, and the platform/publisher gets all the benefit. Imagine being an author and paying to publish your novel. Also btw the editor is another author but has to p…

> Imagine being an author and paying to publish your novel.

That is... completely normal.

> Also btw the editor is another author but has to proofread your book for free.

That would be weirder; if you're paying for your own publication, you don't get an editor at all unless you hire them yourself.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#46

Post by Der_Einzige »

For anyone that wants to evade the kind of people who want to figure out if an AI wrote your review or not, we wrote a whole paper (ICLR 2026!) on how to do that!

https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15061

I consider all types of "I liked this output, but don't the moment I learned it was AI generated" to be externalizations of "carbon chauvinism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_chauvinism) and basically bigotry.

And BTW, the term "meritocracy" was coined in a book that was extremely critical of the idea and which argued that a real meritocracy is actually dystopian. We consider our work "harming meritocracy" to be a good outcome: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy)

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#47

Post by nneonneo »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #42
boplicity wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> draconian social scoring This is a legitimate question: should people have reputations? Should their behavior be made more visible publicly, both good and bad? How? In a small contained society, where consequences are more directly affecting individuals immedately, these questions don't need to be asked, because they're inherantly answered. We now are a society with billions of people, and dire consequences sometim…

Isn’t China doing something like this ? Wonder if it could degrade to something worse than the status quo where reputations are falsely tarnished by competitors purely as a weapon to get ahead…

The "Chinese social credit" system is vastly overblown.

I'm living here (China, Beijing and Jiangsu) now, and there are exactly two cases in the past eight months where the "social credit" system has had any impact at all:

- To open "take first pay after" vending machines. These are vending machines which are basically big locked fridges; if your credit score is high enough, you can open the machines, take whatever drinks/snacks you want, and they'll use (I presume) computer vision to charge you afterwards. If you don't have a high enough credit score, tough, you can't use them. (But there's almost always normal pay-first vending machines nearby).

- To borrow mobile charging packs (powerbanks). Some operators will let you "swipe your credit" (check your credit score) to take one without paying a deposit. If your credit score isn't high enough, you first pay e.g. a ¥99 deposit (~$15USD) which gets returned when you return the powerbank, not a big deal.

That's...it. My credit score is high enough on only one platform (Alipay), so I get to try what happens with both "high" and "low" credit, and I can confidently say these are the *only* two cases where I have even been asked to show the credit score. I have taken multiple train trips, bought lots of stuff in stores and restaurants, etc. without ever touching the "social credit score".

P.S. I literally don't even know how to raise my credit score, and neither do many of the folks who live here - again, not that it matters, because the score is simply not that important.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#48

Post by Sharlin »

azan_ wrote: post #24
jsrozner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk if we're automating humans out of the publishing loop as much as rapidly automating the production of crap. I had a very similar experience reviewing for EMNLP recently. We are nowhere near AI being able to judge the quality of research (in fact, one might reasonably state that even most humans can't really judge the quality of research). Most things in society are not like math: we can't automate (via verificati…

People should get paid for reviewing. That’s the solution. Publishing companies rack in billions of dollars in pure profit exploring free labor. Once people actually get paid for reviewing, it becomes much faster and higher quality and you won’t need AI triage.

Doesn’t work anymore because people would just have ChatGPT generate their reviews and get paid for doing nothing.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#49

Post by whatever1 »

jsrozner wrote: post #11
nneonneo wrote: post #2

At this point, in the field of AI research: - papers are written by AI (as pointed out in this article, and as obvious to anyone who spends a while actually reading recent AI research) - papers are reviewed by AI (NeurIPS is doing an AI assisted review experiment - https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/ai-reviewing-experiment - and I feel the trend is moving towards AI reviewers whether we like it or not) - papers are…

Idk if we're automating humans out of the publishing loop as much as rapidly automating the production of crap. I had a very similar experience reviewing for EMNLP recently. We are nowhere near AI being able to judge the quality of research (in fact, one might reasonably state that even most humans can't really judge the quality of research). Most things in society are not like math: we can't automate (via verificati…

Exactly. We invented a pump.

We can use it as vacuum to clean things up. The same pump can be used as a shit fire hose.

The effort we need to clean things up is significantly higher than the effort needed to make a mess.

Post reply on HN