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

441–450 of 528 posts

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

#441

Post by QuercusMax »

gus_massa wrote: post #398
derefr wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that an LLM is a perfectly sensible tool for structure-preserving machine translation from another language to English. (Where by "another language", you could also also substitute "very poor/non-fluent English." Though IMHO that's a bit silly, even though it's possible; there's little sense in writing in a language you only half know, when you'd get a less-lossy result from just writing in your native…

Autotranslating technical texts is very hard. After the translation, you muct check that all the technical words were translated correctly, instead of a fancy synonym that does not make sense. (A friend has an old book translated a long time ago (by a human) from Russian to Spanish. Instead of " complex numbers ", the book calls them " complicated numbers ". :) )

I remember one time when I had written a bunch of user facing text for an imaging app and was reviewing our French translation. I don't speak French but I was pretty sure "plane" (as in geometry) shouldn't be translated as "avion". And this was human translated!

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

#442

Post by aydyn »

BobbyJo wrote: post #433
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…

> 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…

> TBF, most people in real life don't even know how AI works to any degree

How about the authors who do research for NeurIPS? Do they know how AI works?

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

#443

Post by aydyn »

neilv wrote: post #438
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…

> 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 encountere…

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

Because they are not. Using AI to help writing is something literally every company is pushing for.

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

#444

Post by thomasahle »

neilv wrote: post #339
i_am_proteus wrote: post #268

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…

> 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…

> And also plagiarism, when you claim authorship of it.

I don't actually mind putting Claude as a co-author on my github commits.

But for papers there are usually so many tools involved. It would be crowded to include each of Claude, Gemini, Codex, Mathematica, Grammarly, Translate etc. as co-authors, even though I used all of them for some parts.

Maybe just having a "tools used" section could work?

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

#445

Post by shawn10067 »

The takeaway for me isn't that LLMs produce bad references—humans do that too—but that cutting corners shows in the final product. If your background section contains made‑up citations, it makes readers wonder how careful you were with the parts they can't check as easily. If you're going to use AI tools for draft writing, you still need to vet every fact.

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

#446

Post by abbassix »

derefr wrote: post #379
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…

I would argue that an LLM is a perfectly sensible tool for structure-preserving machine translation from another language to English. (Where by "another language", you could also also substitute "very poor/non-fluent English." Though IMHO that's a bit silly, even though it's possible; there's little sense in writing in a language you only half know, when you'd get a less-lossy result from just writing in your native…

We still do not have a standardized way to represent Machine Learning concepts. For example in vision model, I see lots of papers confused about the "skip connections" and "residual connection" and when they concatenate channels they call them "residual connection" while it shows that they haven't understood why we call them "residual" in the first place. In my humble opinion, each conference, and better be a confederation of conferences, work together to provide a glossary, a technical guideline, and also a special machine translation tool, to correct a non-clear-with-lots-of-grammatical-error-English like mine!

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

#448

Post by Lerc »

j2kun wrote: post #440
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.

So you are saying their claim of

>GPTZero's analysis 4841 papers accepted by NeurIPS 2025 show there are at least 100 with confirmed hallucinations

Is not true. [Edit - that sounds a bit harsh making it seem like you are accusing them, it's more that this is a logical conclusion of your(imo reasonable) interpretation.

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

#449

Post by bloppe »

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 agree, but I don't think any of the broadly acceptable uses would result in easily identifiable flaws like those in the post, especially hallucinated URLs.
Post reply on HN