New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references
1–10 of 242 posts
Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references
#2Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references
#3Good; academic literature is in crisis because of all of the slop. Forcing some consequences on easily-detectable hallucinations can only be a good thing
Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references
#4> The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue.
This is incredibly good for science. arXiv is free, but it's a privilege not a right!
I'm not seeing this clearly listed on https://info.arxiv.org/help/policies/index.html so it's possible this is planned but not live yet - or perhaps I'm not digging deeply enough?
As a certain doctor once said: the whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret!
Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references
#5It seems a good idea to ban cheating, but how hard is it, especially in new reasoning/agents contexts to validate references?
The deeper question is whether legitimate AI generated results are allowed or not? Test - In the extreme - think proof of Riemann Hypothesis autonomously generated (end to end) formally proven - is it allowed or not?
Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references
#6Good; academic literature is in crisis because of all of the slop. Forcing some consequences on easily-detectable hallucinations can only be a good thing
It's not just AI, though. I did a doctorate in physics about 40 years back, and bad references were a problem back then.
Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references
#7It seems a good idea to ban cheating, but how hard is it, especially in new reasoning/agents contexts to validate references? The deeper question is whether legitimate AI generated results are allowed or not? Test - In the extreme - think proof of Riemann Hypothesis autonomously generated (end to end) formally proven - is it allowed or not?
This is not about banning cheating, it’s about banning inaccurate information.
Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references
#8It seems a good idea to ban cheating, but how hard is it, especially in new reasoning/agents contexts to validate references? The deeper question is whether legitimate AI generated results are allowed or not? Test - In the extreme - think proof of Riemann Hypothesis autonomously generated (end to end) formally proven - is it allowed or not?
You don’t need to solve everything, catching a few thousand non existent citations with such a policy is on its own a net benefit.
Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references
#9It seems a good idea to ban cheating, but how hard is it, especially in new reasoning/agents contexts to validate references? The deeper question is whether legitimate AI generated results are allowed or not? Test - In the extreme - think proof of Riemann Hypothesis autonomously generated (end to end) formally proven - is it allowed or not?
It is allowed as long as it’s verified.
The thread specifically points out that if authors can’t be arsed to simply proofread their text the rest can not be trusted either.
It’s a simple heuristic against low quality submissions, not an anti-ai measure.
Re: New arXiv policy: 1-year ban for hallucinated references
#10https://xcancel.com/tdietterich/status/2055000956144935055
> Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated (Dieterrich, T. G.)