221–230 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what way? Surely something like the source not quite saying what was cited, or mixing up citations, rather than inventing them outright?
That, and mixing reference details from multiple sources and messing it up. Let's say you read a paper on Arxiv but cite the version that was submitted to a journal or conference, without realizing that the authors made changes to the version they submitted and forgot to upload them to Arxiv.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why is the standard response to "this tech isn't reliable enough for this" to run its output through the same unreliable tech? The device-fixer started breaking devices instead of fixing them. Tell it to fix itself!
why is the standard response when someone comes down with a serious illness to bring them into a facility where serious illnesses spread readily? sometimes the presently available solutions are subpar. people go with what's available. it's not ideal, but it is practical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like requiring that your cited references are real is a pretty low bar
It sounds like even copy/paste errors from Google Scholar would qualify for the lifetime ban. Let he who is without sin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think every co-author on a 100-author paper checks every citation? It's like saying that every member of a large software team personally reviews every line of code. It's just completely divorced from reality.
How many papers have 100 authors? Again, I'm not in academia, but most of the papers I see have two to five authors; maybe I've seen one or two with ten authors. Regardless, if I'm signing my name on something, I check it out. A reference that doesn't exist is like a source release that doesn't compile. Any one of the 100 person team could have figured it out but no one did. In a 100 person team you get diffuse respo…
Responsibility really is diffuse. That's the nature of things. On a 100-author paper, 80 people are there because they worked on the upstream data source. 15 are there because they gave advice to the primary author. 3 are there because they wrote individual sections or appendices. 1 is there because they proof-read the paper and made general suggestions. 1 is there because they led the work and wrote the paper.
Now, do you actually think every one of those people is going to go through all 75 citations in the paper and carefully check that the bibliographic information is correct, and that every citation is correctly summarized? This is not a one-liner like checking if a project compiles. This is hours and hours (or more realistically, several days) of work.
You have an idealized view of how science works that is just not in line with reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling LLMs "bullshit generators" in the year 2026 just shows a lack of seriousness.
Not as much of a lack of seriousness as excusing away hallucinations as not that big of a deal in what's supposed to be a researched, scholarly body of work written by humans.
I don't see anyone excusing hallucinated citations. I see people arguing that this is an overreaction by the arXiv. AI is going to become a major part of research, including in writing papers. It would be better if people would freak out a little less about that fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are still purposely writing a paper, whether that is with the help of an LLM or not. They are instructing the LLM to do the task of finding citations. It's no difference to googling for a paper that explains a specific point. You would still double check Google's output.
So you just write whatever you want, then find a source for it later? I don't think you understand how this is supposed to work
> The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue. This is incredibly good for science. arXiv is free, but it's a privilege not a right! I'm not seeing this clearly listed on https://info.arxiv.org/help/policies/index.html so it's possible this is planned but not live yet - or perhaps I'm not digging deeply…
>> The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue. Catch-22 [1]: You will need to provide an arXiv article id. This is necessary for your paper to be processed correctly, the submitted version must be the same as the arXiv version. [1] https://jcap.sissa.it/jcap/help/helpLoader.jsp?pgType=author
Are all venues like this, however?