91–100 of 528 posts
Could you run a similar analysis for pre-2020 papers? It'd be interesting to know how prevalent making up sources was before LLMs.
It’s for sure plausible that it’s increasing, but I’m certain this kind of thing happened with humans too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I steal hundreds of thousands of dollars (salary, plus research grants and other funds) and produce fake output, what do you think is appropriate? To me, it's no different than stealing a car or tricking an old lady into handing over her fidelity account. You are stealing, and society says stealing is a criminal act.
We have a civil court system to handle stuff like this already.
Yuck, this is going to really harm scientific research. There is already a problem with papers falsifying data/samples/etc, LLMs being able to put out plausible papers is just going to make it worse. On the bright side, maybe this will get the scientific community and science journalists to finally take reproducibility more seriously. I'd love to see future reporting that instead of saying "Research finds amazing che…
> I'd love to see future reporting that instead of saying "Research finds amazing chemical x which does y" you see "Researcher reproduces amazing results for chemical x which does y. First discovered by z". Most people (that I talk to, at least) in science agree that there's a reproducibility crisis. The challenge is there really isn't a good way to incentivize that work. Fundamentally (unless you're independent weal…
What if we got Undergrads (with hope of graduate studies) to do it? Could be a great way to train them on the skills required for research without the pressure of it also being novel?
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…
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 it once, they do it wherever they think they can get away with it. It’s a slippery slope from letting an LLM handle citations to letting the LLM write things for you to letting the LLM interpret the data. The latter opens the door to hallucinated results and statistics, as anyone who has experimented with LLMs for data analysis will discover eventually.
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!
I don't understand: why aren't there automated tools to verify citations' existence? The data for a citation has a structured styling (APA, MLA, Chicago) and paper metadata is available via e.g. a web search, even if the paper contents are not I guess GPTZero has such a tool. I'm confused why it isn't used more widely by paper authors and reviewers
In my experience you will see considerable variation in citation formats, even in journals that strictly define it and require using BibTex. And lots of journals leave their citation format rules very vague. Its a problem that runs deep.
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…
> the content of the papers themselves are not necessarily invalidated. For example, authors may have given an LLM a partial description of a citation and asked the LLM to produce bibtex (a formatted reference) Maybe I'm overreacting, but this feels like an insanely biased response. They found the one potentially innocuous reason and latched onto that as a way to hand-wave the entire problem away. Science already had…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There should be a way to drop any kind of circular citation ring from the indexes.
It's tough because some great citations are hard to find/procure still. I sometimes refer to papers that aren't on the Internet (eg. old wonderful books / journals).
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…
> the content of the papers themselves are not necessarily invalidated. For example, authors may have given an LLM a partial description of a citation and asked the LLM to produce bibtex (a formatted reference) Maybe I'm overreacting, but this feels like an insanely biased response. They found the one potentially innocuous reason and latched onto that as a way to hand-wave the entire problem away. Science already had…