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

I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

geospatialml.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 181 posts

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#61

Post by bulbar »

nneonneo wrote: post #2

At this point, in the field of AI research: - papers are written by AI (as pointed out in this article, and as obvious to anyone who spends a while actually reading recent AI research) - papers are reviewed by AI (NeurIPS is doing an AI assisted review experiment - https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/ai-reviewing-experiment - and I feel the trend is moving towards AI reviewers whether we like it or not) - papers are…

We try to iterate regarding efficiency (saying that as a neutral observation). Not sure if that works out. As often the case, sciences that don't serve as a foundation for real world results (can this plane fly faster now?) are in much more danger.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#63

Post by nottorp »

hellohello2 wrote: post #21
dwaltrip wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless someone has discovered some magic sauce for getting AI to write well, I have immense sympathy for anyone trying to wade through these papers. I may generate slop from time to time, but I do my best to keep it to myself.

My 2 cents: AI has improved writing considerably for non-native english speakers (in particular China). Writing feels more standardized/boring but easier to read overall. I hit fewer papers that are a pain to read. The most problematic aspect I see are semi-bogus claims i.e. sentences that aren't false, but don't quite feel right either. YMMV.

You mean it may have improved translation...

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#64

Post by gspr »

boplicity wrote: post #17
jsrozner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk if we're automating humans out of the publishing loop as much as rapidly automating the production of crap. I had a very similar experience reviewing for EMNLP recently. We are nowhere near AI being able to judge the quality of research (in fact, one might reasonably state that even most humans can't really judge the quality of research). Most things in society are not like math: we can't automate (via verificati…

> draconian social scoring This is a legitimate question: should people have reputations? Should their behavior be made more visible publicly, both good and bad? How? In a small contained society, where consequences are more directly affecting individuals immedately, these questions don't need to be asked, because they're inherantly answered. We now are a society with billions of people, and dire consequences sometim…

There's a huge difference between a completely decentralized reputation system like the interpersonal one that has existed since humans first became sentient, and an artificially built top-down reputation system run by a powerful entity (be it the state like in China or megacorps like in the West).

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#65

Post by [deleted] »

volumes94 wrote: post #38
xiaoyu2006 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can accept having a human first draft and let LLM proofreading and/or do some polish on language, but not the reversed order.

This is an oversimplification and I'll edit. Caleb and I had a conversation about our reviewing woes and thought it would be fun to do an interview style post, so we had Claude come up with some questions based on our convo. We answered the questions from scratch and had Claude proofread at the end.

[deleted]

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#67

Post by rogerrogerr »

nneonneo wrote: post #47
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t China doing something like this ? Wonder if it could degrade to something worse than the status quo where reputations are falsely tarnished by competitors purely as a weapon to get ahead…

The "Chinese social credit" system is vastly overblown. I'm living here (China, Beijing and Jiangsu) now, and there are exactly two cases in the past eight months where the "social credit" system has had any impact at all: - To open "take first pay after" vending machines. These are vending machines which are basically big locked fridges; if your credit score is high enough, you can open the machines, take whatever d…

I remember in the west a few years ago we were seeing purported pictures of electronic billboards in China shaming low-social-credit-havers. Was that all a weird psyop?

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#68

Post by com »

nottorp wrote: post #63
hellohello2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 2 cents: AI has improved writing considerably for non-native english speakers (in particular China). Writing feels more standardized/boring but easier to read overall. I hit fewer papers that are a pain to read. The most problematic aspect I see are semi-bogus claims i.e. sentences that aren't false, but don't quite feel right either. YMMV.

You mean it may have improved translation...

[dead]

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#69

Post by tdeck »

mlmonkey wrote: post #57

> This all is very annoying from inside the review queue. Peer review is unpaid work that we do The genie is out of the bottle. We need to figure out a way to contain it. I think a solution is to use LLMs for peer reviews also; fight fire with fire?

Clearly not, if the reason you care is quality.

Re: I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

#70

Post by azan_ »

afdbcreid wrote: post #55
Sharlin wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t work anymore because people would just have ChatGPT generate their reviews and get paid for doing nothing.

Then perhaps people need to pay to get their paper reviewed?

People already do.
Post reply on HN