←back to thread

Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions

(gptzero.me)
504 points puttycat | 2 comments | 07 Dec 25 13:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.51s | source
Show context
shusaku ◴[07 Dec 25 14:52 UTC] No.46182067[source]▶
Checking each citation one by one is quite critical in peer review, and of course checking a colleagues paper. I’ve never had to deal with AI slop, but you’ll definitely see something cited for the wrong reason. And just the other day during the final typesetting of a paper of mine I found the journal had messed up a citation (same journal / author but wrong work!)
replies(1): >>46182278 #
1. stefan_ ◴[07 Dec 25 15:16 UTC] No.46182278[source]▶
Is it quite critical? Peer review is not checking homework, it's about the novel contribution presented. Papers will frequently cite related notable experiments or introduce a problem that as a peer reviewer in the field I'm already well familiar with. These paragraphs generate many citations but are the least important part of a peer review.

(People submitting AI slop should still be ostracized of course, if you can't be bothered to read it, why would you think I should)

replies(1): >>46182389 #
2. shusaku ◴[07 Dec 25 15:29 UTC] No.46182389[source]▶
Fair point. In my mind it is critical because mistakes are common and can only be fixed by a peer. But you are right that we should not miss the forest through the trees and get lost on small details.