What if they would only accept handwritten papers? Basically the current system is beyond repair, so may as well go back to receiving 20 decent papers instead of 20k hallucinated ones.
GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
111–120 of 528 posts
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#112[dead]
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#113Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#114It would be great if those scientists who use AI without disclosing it get fucked for life.
Instead of publishing their papers in the prestigious zines - which is what they're after - we will publish them in "AI Slop Weekly" with name and picture. Up the submission risk a bit.
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#115Yuck, 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…
> 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".
But nobody want to pay for it
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#116How you know it's really real is that they clearly tell the FPR, and compare against a pre-llm baseline.
But I saw it in Apple News, so MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#117As long as these sorts of papers serve more important purposes for the careers of the authors than anything related to science or discovery of knowledge, then of course this happens and continues.
The best possible outcome is that these two purposes are disconflated, with follow-on consequences for the conferences and journals.
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#118NeurIPS 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…
Kinda gives the whole game away, doesn’t it? “It doesn’t actually matter if the citations are hallucinated.” In fairness, NeurIPS is just saying out loud what everyone already knows. Most citations in published science are useless junk: it’s either mutual back-scratching to juice h-index, or it’s the embedded and pointless practice of overcitation, like “Human beings need clean water to survive (Franz, 2002)”. Really…
> Most citations in published science are useless junk:
Can't say that matches my experience at all. Once I've found a useful paper on a topic thereafter I primarily navigate the literature by traveling up and down the citation graph. It's extremely effective in practice and it's continued to get easier to do as the digitization of metadata has improved over the years.
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#119All papers proved to have used a LLM beyond writing improvement should be automatically retracted
Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's tough because some great citations are hard to find/procure still. I sometimes refer to papers that aren't on the Internet (eg. old wonderful books / journals).
But that actually strengthens those citiations. The I scratch your back you scratch mine ones are the ones I'm getting at and that is quite hard to do with old and wonderful stuff, the authors there are probably not in a position to reciprocate by virtue of observing the grass from the other side.
I think it's a hard problem. The semanticscholar folks are doing the sort of work that would allow them to track this; I wonder if they've thought about it.
A somewhat-related parable: I once worked in a larger lab with several subteams submitting to the same conference. Sometimes the work we did was related, so we both cited each other's paper which was also under review at the same venue. (These were flavor citations in the "related work" section for completeness, not material to our arguments.) In the review copy, the reference lists the other paper as written by "anonymous (also under review at XXXX2025)," also emphasized by a footnote to explain the situation to reviewers. When it came time to submit the camera-ready copy, we either removed the anonymization or replaced it with an arxiv link if the other team's paper got rejected. :-) I doubt this practice improved either paper's chances of getting accepted.
Are these the sorts of citation rings you're talking about? If authors misrepresented the work as if it were accepted, or pretended it was published last year or something, I'd agree with you, but it's not too uncommon in my area for well-connected authors to cite manuscripts in process. I don't think it's a problem as long as they don't lean on them.