11–20 of 442 posts
Can we just call them "lies" and "fabrications" which is what they are? If I write the same, you will call them "made up citations" and "academic dishonesty". One can use AI to help them write without going all the way to having it generate facts and citations.
It's going to be even worse than 50: > Given that we've only scanned 300 out of 20,000 submissions, we estimate that we will find 100s of hallucinated papers in the coming days.
20,000 submissions to a single conference? That is nuts
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/dec/06/ai-resear...
It's going to be even worse than 50: > Given that we've only scanned 300 out of 20,000 submissions, we estimate that we will find 100s of hallucinated papers in the coming days.
20,000 submissions to a single conference? That is nuts
Can't quote exact numbers but when I was on the conference committee for a maybe high four figures attendance conference, we certainly had many thousands of submissions.
If a scientist uses an LLM to write a paper with fabricated citations - that’s a crappy scientist.
AI is not the problem, laziness and negligence is. There needs to be serious social consequences to this kind of thing, otherwise we are tacitly endorsing it.
Is the baseline assumption of this work that an erroneous citation is LLM hallucinated? Did they run the checker across a body of papers before LLMs were available and verify that there were no citations in peer reviewed papers that got authors or titles wrong?
Is the baseline assumption of this work that an erroneous citation is LLM hallucinated? Did they run the checker across a body of papers before LLMs were available and verify that there were no citations in peer reviewed papers that got authors or titles wrong?
Exactly as you said, do precisely this to pre-LLM works. There will be an enormous number of errors with utter certainty.
People keep imperfect notes. People are lazy. People sometimes even fabricate. None of this needed LLMs to happen.
Is the baseline assumption of this work that an erroneous citation is LLM hallucinated? Did they run the checker across a body of papers before LLMs were available and verify that there were no citations in peer reviewed papers that got authors or titles wrong?
Thad said, i am also very curious of the result than their tool, would give to papers from the 2010's and before.