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

GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

gptzero.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 528 posts

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#411

Post by red75prime »

Aurornis wrote: post #95
gcr wrote: post #28

NeurIPS 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…

> Even if 1.1% of the papers have one or more incorrect references due to the use of LLMs, the content of the papers themselves are not necessarily invalidated. This statement isn’t wrong, as the rest of the paper could still be correct. However, when I see a blatant falsification somewhere in a paper I’m immediately suspicious of everything else. Authors who take lazy shortcuts when convenient usually don’t just do…

Yep, it's a slippery slope. No one in their right mind would have tried to use GPT 2.0 for writing a part of their paper. But hallucination-error-rate kept decreasing. How do you think, is there acceptable hallucination-error-rate greater than 0?

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#413

Post by falkensmaize »

aydyn wrote: post #401
neilv wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If these are the only errors, we are not troubled. However: we do not know if these are the only errors, they are merely a signature that the paper was submitted without being thoroughly checked for hallucinations. They are a signature that some LLM was used to generate parts of the paper and the responsible authors used this LLM without care. I am troubled by people using an LLM at all to write academic research p…

>also plagiarism To me, this is a reminder of how much of a specific minority this forum is. Nobody I know in real life, personally or at work, has expressed this belief. I have literally only ever encountered this anti-AI extremism (extremism in the non-pejorative sense) in places like reddit and here. Clearly, the authors in NeurIPS don't agree that using an LLM to help write is "plagiarism", and I would trust thei…

“Anti-AI extremism”? Seriously?

Where does this bizarre impulse to dogmatically defend LLM output come from? I don’t understand it.

If AI is a reliable and quality tool, that will become evident without the need to defend it - it’s got billions (trillions?) of dollars backstopping it. The skeptical pushback is WAY more important right now than the optimistic embrace.

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#414

Post by nickpsecurity »

NightBlossom wrote: post #407

This feels less like scientific integrity and more like predatory marketing. I find this public "shame list" approach by GPTZero deeply unethical and technically suspect for several reasons: 1. Doxxing disguised as specific criticism: Publishing the names of authors and papers without prior private notification or independent verification is not how academic corrections work. It looks like a marketing stunt to genera…

Yeah, my first question was whether or not the hallucination checker can hallucinate.

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#416

Post by nickpsecurity »

mike_hearn wrote: post #207
biophysboy wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

? More samples reduces the variance of a statistic. Obviously it cannot identify systematic bias in a model, or establish causality, or make a "bad" question "good". Its not overrated though -- it would strengthen or weaken the case for many papers.

If you have a strong grip on exactly what it means, sure, but look at any HN thread on the topic of fraud in science. People think replication = validity because it's been described as the replication crisis for the last 15 years. And that's the best case! Funding replication studies in the current environment would just lead to lots of invalid papers being promoted as "fully replicated" and people would be fooled ev…

Part of replication is skeptical review. That's also part of the scientific method. If we're not doing thorough review and replication, we're not really doing science. It's a lot of faith in people incentivized to do sloppy or dishonest work.

Edit: I just read your article linked upthread. It was really good. I don't think we disagree except I say we need to attempt the steps of science wherever sensible and there's human/political problems trying to corrupt them. I try to seperately address those by changing hearts with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (Cuz self-interest won't fix science.)

So, we need the replications. We also need to address whatever issues would pop up with them.

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#418

Post by kortilla »

jama211 wrote: post #408
fingerlocks wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that hard to believe. Every creative professional that I know shares this sentiment. That’s several graphic designers at big tech companies, one person in print media, and one visual effects artist in the film industry. And once you include many of their professional colleagues that becomes a decent sample size.

Graphic design is a completely different kettle of fish. Comparing it to academic paper writing is disingenuous.

The thread is about not knowing anyone at all who thinks AI is plagiarizing.

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#419

Post by cthalupa »

falkensmaize wrote: post #413
aydyn wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>also plagiarism To me, this is a reminder of how much of a specific minority this forum is. Nobody I know in real life, personally or at work, has expressed this belief. I have literally only ever encountered this anti-AI extremism (extremism in the non-pejorative sense) in places like reddit and here. Clearly, the authors in NeurIPS don't agree that using an LLM to help write is "plagiarism", and I would trust thei…

“Anti-AI extremism”? Seriously? Where does this bizarre impulse to dogmatically defend LLM output come from? I don’t understand it. If AI is a reliable and quality tool, that will become evident without the need to defend it - it’s got billions (trillions?) of dollars backstopping it. The skeptical pushback is WAY more important right now than the optimistic embrace.

The fact that there is absurd AI hype right now doesn't mean that we should let equally absurd bullshit pass on the other side of the spectrum. Having a reasonable and accurate discussion about the benefits, drawbacks, side effects, etc. is WAY more important right now than being flagrantly incorrect in either direction.

Meanwhile this entire comment thread is about what appears to be, as fumi2026 points out in their comment, a predatory marketing play by a startup hoping to capitalize on the exact sort of anti AI sentiment that you seem to think is important... just because there is pro AI sentiment?

Naming and shaming everyday researchers based on the idea that they have let hallucinations slip into their paper all because your own AI model has decided thatit was AI so you can signal boost your product seems pretty shitty and exploitative to me, and is only viable as a product and marketing strategy because of the visceral anti AI sentiment in some places.

Re: GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

#420

Post by nonethewiser »

NightBlossom wrote: post #407

This feels less like scientific integrity and more like predatory marketing. I find this public "shame list" approach by GPTZero deeply unethical and technically suspect for several reasons: 1. Doxxing disguised as specific criticism: Publishing the names of authors and papers without prior private notification or independent verification is not how academic corrections work. It looks like a marketing stunt to genera…

I think its great.

They explicitly distinguish between a "flawed citation" (missing author, typo in title) and a hallucination (completely fabricated journal, fake DOI, nonexistent authors). You can literally click through and verify each one yourself. If you think they're wrong about a specific example, point it out. It doesn't matter if these are honest mistakes or not - they should be highlighted and you should be happy to have a tool that can find them before you publish.

It's ridiculous to call it doxxing. The papers are already published at NeurIPS with author names attached. GPTZero isn't revealing anything that wasn't already public. They are pointing out what they think are hallucinations which everyone can judge for themselves.

It might even be terrible at detecting things. Which actually, I do not think is the case after reading the article. But even so, if they are unreliable I think the problem takes care of itself.

Post reply on HN