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

431–440 of 528 posts

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

#431

Post by godelski »

bandrami wrote: post #313
godelski wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funding is definitely a problem, but frankly reproduction is common. If you build off someone else's work (as is the norm) you need to reproduce first. But without repetition being impactful to your career and the pressure to quickly and constantly push new work, a failure to reproduce is generally considered a reason to move on and tackle a different domain. It takes longer to trace the failure and the bar is higher…

> If you build off someone else's work (as is the norm) you need to reproduce first. Not if the result you're building off of is a model, you can just assume it

Everything is a model. The word is just so vague. Did you use math? Great, mathematical model. Program? That's a model.

You can assume a model is true but you know what they say about assumptions

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

#433

Post by BobbyJo »

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…

> Nobody I know in real life, personally or at work, has expressed this belief.

TBF, most people in real life don't even know how AI works to any degree, so using that as an argument that parent's opinion is extreme is kind of circular reasoning.

> I have literally only ever encountered this anti-AI extremism (extremism in the non-pejorative sense) in places like reddit and here.

I don't see parent's opinions as anti-AI. It's more an argument about what AI is currently, and what research is supposed to be. AI is existing ideas. Research is supposed to be new ideas. If much of your research paper can be written by AI, I call into question whether or not it represents actual research.

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

#434

Post by uhfraid »

brador wrote: post #123

The problem isn’t scale. The problem is consequences (lack of). Doing this should get you barred from research. It won’t.

Scale IS a problem, just not the only one.

Consequences are the inevitable solution. Accountability starting with authors, followed by organizations/institutions.

Warning for first offense, ban after

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

#435

Post by rustystump »

falkensmaize wrote: post #429
cthalupa wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“anti-ai sentiment” No that’s a straw man, sorry. Skepticism is not the same thing as irrational rejection. It means that I don’t believe you until you’ve proven with evidence that what you’re saying is true. The efficacy and reliability of LLMs requires proof. Ai companies are pouring extraordinary, unprecedented amounts of money into promoting the idea that their products are intelligent and trustworthy. That marke…

The cat is out of the bag tho. AI does have provably crazy value. Certainly not the agi hype marketing spews and who knows how economically viable it would be without vc.

However, i think any one who is still skeptical of the real efficacy is willfully ignorant. This is not a moral endorsement on how it was made or if it is moral to use but god damn it is a game changer across vast domains.

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

#436

Post by techpression »

jama211 wrote: post #409
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…

Yup, and no matter how flimsy an anti-ai article is, it will skyrocket to the top of HN because of it. It makes sense though, HN users are the most likely to feel threatened by LLMs, and therefore are more likely to be anxious about them. I don’t love ai either, but that’s the truth.

Strange, I find it quite the opposite, especially ”pro-ai” comments are often top of the list.

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

#437

Post by rustystump »

bjourne wrote: post #393
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…

There are legitimate , non-cheating ways to use LLMs for writing. I often use the wrong verb forms ("They synthesizes the ..."), write "though" when it should be "although", and forget to comma-separate clauses. LLMs are perfect for that. Generating text from scratch, however, is wrong.

I do similar proofing (esp spelling) but u need to be very careful as it will nudge u to specific styles that rob originality.

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

#438

Post by neilv »

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…

> Clearly, the authors in NeurIPS don't agree that using an LLM to help write is "plagiarism",

Or they didn't consider that it arguably fell within academia's definition of plagiarism.

Or they thought they could get away with it.

Why is someone behaving questionably the authority on whether that's OK?

> 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.

It's not "anti-AI extremism".

If no one you know has said, "Hey, wait a minute, if I'm copy&pasting this text I didn't write, and putting my name on it, without credit or attribution, isn't that like... no... what am I missing?" then maybe they are focused on other angles.

That doesn't mean that people who consider different angles than your friends do are "extremist".

They're only "extremist" in the way that anyone critical at all of 'crypto' was "extremist", to the bros pumping it. Not coincidentally, there's some overlap in bros between the two.

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

#439

Post by techpression »

cthalupa wrote: post #419
falkensmaize wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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…

Isn’t that the whole point of publishing? This happened plenty before AI too, and the claims are easily verified by checking the claimed hallucinations. Don’t publish things that aren’t verified and you won’t have a problem, same as before but perhaps now it’s easier to verify, which is a good thing. We see this problem in many areas, last week it was a criminal case where a made up law was referenced, luckily the judge knew to call it out. We can’t just blindly trust things in this era, and calling it out is the only way to bring it up to the surface.

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

#440

Post by j2kun »

Lerc wrote: post #264

So the headline says > GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers And I'm left wondering if they mean 100 papers or 100 hallucinations The subheading says > GPTZero's analysis 4841 papers accepted by NeurIPS 2025 show there are at least 100 with confirmed hallucinations Which accidentally a word, but seems to clarify that they do legitimately mean 100 papers. A later heading says > Table of…

They counted multiple hallucinations in a single paper toward the 100, and explicitly call out one paper with 13 incorrect citations that are claimed (reasonably, IMO) to be hallucinated.
Post reply on HN