331–340 of 528 posts
Why focus on hallucinations/LLMs and not on the authors? There are rules for submitting papers. If I drop a loaded gun and it fires, killing someone, we don't go after the gun's manufacturer in most cases.
Go look up the P320 pistol and the tons of accidental discharges that’s it’s caused.
https://stateline.org/2025/03/10/more-law-enforcement-agenci...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bibtex are often also incorrectly generated. E.g., google scholar sometimes puts the names of the editors instead of the authors into the bibtex entry.
> Bibtex are often also incorrectly generated ...and including the erroneous entry is squarely the author's fault. Papers should be carefully crafted, not churned out. I guess that makes me sweetly naive
The entire idea of super-detailed citations is itself quite outdated in my view. Sure, citing the work you rely on is important, but that could be done just as well via hyperlinks. It's not like anybody (exclusively) relies on printed versions any more.
There's a lot of good arguments in this thread about incentives: extremely convincing about why current incentives lead to exactly this behaviour, and also why creating better incentives is a very hard problem. If we grant that good carrots are hard to grow, what's the argument against leaning into the stick? Change university policies and processes so that getting caught fabricating data or submitting a paper with L…
the harsher the punishment, the more due process required. i don't think there are any AI detection tools that are sufficiently reliable that I would feel comfortable expelling a student or ending someone's career based on their output. for example, we can all see what's going on with these papers (and it appears to be even worse among ICLR submissions). but it is possible to make an honest mistake with your BibTeX.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Harsh sentiment. Pretty soon every knowledge worker will use AI every day. Should people disclose spellcheckers powered by AI? Disclosing is not useful. Being careful in how you use it and checking work is what matters.
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.
I spot-checked one of the flagged papers (from Google, co-authored by a colleague of mine) The paper was https://openreview.net/forum?id=0ZnXGzLcOg and the problem flagged was "Two authors are omitted and one (Kyle Richardson) is added. This paper was published at ICLR 2024." I.e., for one cited paper, the author list was off and the venue was wrong. And this citation was mentioned in the background section of the pa…
The thing is, when you copy paste a bibliography entry from the publisher or from Google Scholar, the authors won't be wrong. In this case, it is. If I were to write a paper with AI, I would at least manage the bibliography by hand, conscious of hallucinations. The fact that the hallucination is in the bibliography is a pretty strong indicator that the paper was written entirely with AI.
I wouldn't trust today's GPT-5-with-web-search to do turn a bullet point list of papers into proper citations without checking myself, but maybe I will trust GPT-X-plus-agent to do this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah even the entire "Jane Doe / Jame Smith" my first thought is that it could have been a latex default value There was dumb stuff like this before the GPT era, it's far from convincing
There are people who just want to punish academics for the sake of punishing academics. Look at all the people downthread salivating over blacklisting or even criminally charging people who make errors like this with felony fraud. Its the perfect brew of anti AI and anti academia sentiment. Also, in my field (economics), by far the biggest source of finding old papers invalid (or less valid, most papers state multipl…
This is nice and all, but what repercussion does GPTZero get when their bullshit AI detection hallucinates a student using AI? And when that student receives academic discipline because of it? Many such cases of this. More than 100! They claim to have custom detection for GPT-5, Gemini, and Claude. They're making that up!
Indeed. My son has been accused by bullshit AI detection as having used AI, and it has devastated his work quality. After being "disciplined" for using AI (when he didn't), he now intentionally tries to "dumb down" his writing so that it doesn't sound so much like AI. The result is he writes much worse. What a shitty, shitty outcome. I've even found myself leaving typos and things in (even on sites like HN) because i…
Most people getting flagged are getting flagged because they actually used AI and couldn’t even be bothered to manually deslop it.
People who are too lazy to put even a tiny bit of human intentionality into their work deserve it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Science relies on trust.. a lot. So things which show dishonesty are penalised greatly. If we were to remove trust then peer reviewing a paper might take months of work or even years.
I spot-checked one of the flagged papers (from Google, co-authored by a colleague of mine) The paper was https://openreview.net/forum?id=0ZnXGzLcOg and the problem flagged was "Two authors are omitted and one (Kyle Richardson) is added. This paper was published at ICLR 2024." I.e., for one cited paper, the author list was off and the venue was wrong. And this citation was mentioned in the background section of the pa…
>this error does make me pause to wonder how much of the rest of the paper used AI assistance And this is what's operative here. The error spotted, the entire class of error spotted, is easily checked/verified by a non-domain expert. These are the errors we can confirm readily, with obvious and unmistakable signature of hallucination. If these are the only errors, we are not troubled. However: we do not know if these…
I am troubled by people using an LLM at all to write academic research papers.
It's a shoddy, irresponsible way to work. And also plagiarism, when you claim authorship of it.
I'd see a failure of the 'author' to catch hallucinations, to be more like a failure to hide evidence of misconduct.
If academic venues are saying that using an LLM to write your papers is OK ("so long as you look it over for hallucinations"?), then those academic venues deserve every bit of operational pain and damaged reputation that will result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>this error does make me pause to wonder how much of the rest of the paper used AI assistance And this is what's operative here. The error spotted, the entire class of error spotted, is easily checked/verified by a non-domain expert. These are the errors we can confirm readily, with obvious and unmistakable signature of hallucination. If these are the only errors, we are not troubled. However: we do not know if these…
This seems like finding spelling errors and using them to cast the entire paper into doubt. I am unconvinced that the particular error mentioned above is a hallucination, and even less convinced that it is a sign of some kind of rampant use of AI. I hope to find better examples later in the comment section.