←back to thread

Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions

(gptzero.me)
504 points puttycat | 1 comments | 07 Dec 25 13:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.379s | source
Show context
theoldgreybeard ◴[07 Dec 25 15:09 UTC] No.46182214[source]▶
If a carpenter builds a crappy shelf “because” his power tools are not calibrated correctly - that’s a crappy carpenter, not a crappy tool.

If a scientist uses an LLM to write a paper with fabricated citations - that’s a crappy scientist.

AI is not the problem, laziness and negligence is. There needs to be serious social consequences to this kind of thing, otherwise we are tacitly endorsing it.

replies(37): >>46182289 #>>46182330 #>>46182334 #>>46182385 #>>46182388 #>>46182401 #>>46182463 #>>46182527 #>>46182613 #>>46182714 #>>46182766 #>>46182839 #>>46182944 #>>46183118 #>>46183119 #>>46183265 #>>46183341 #>>46183343 #>>46183387 #>>46183435 #>>46183436 #>>46183490 #>>46183571 #>>46183613 #>>46183846 #>>46183911 #>>46183917 #>>46183923 #>>46183940 #>>46184450 #>>46184551 #>>46184653 #>>46184796 #>>46185025 #>>46185817 #>>46185849 #>>46189343 #
CapitalistCartr ◴[07 Dec 25 15:29 UTC] No.46182385[source]▶
I'm an industrial electrician. A lot of poor electrical work is visible only to a fellow electrician, and sometimes only another industrial electrician. Bad technical work requires technical inspectors to criticize. Sometimes highly skilled ones.
replies(5): >>46182431 #>>46182828 #>>46183216 #>>46184370 #>>46184518 #
andy99 ◴[07 Dec 25 15:35 UTC] No.46182431[source]▶
I’ve reviewed a lot of papers, I don’t consider it the reviewers responsibility to manually verify all citations are real. If there was an unusual citation that was relied on heavily for the basis of the work, one would expect it to be checked. Things like broad prior work, you’d just assume it’s part of background.

The reviewer is not a proofreader, they are checking the rigour and relevance of the work, which does not rest heavily on all of the references in a document. They are also assuming good faith.

replies(14): >>46182472 #>>46182485 #>>46182508 #>>46182513 #>>46182594 #>>46182744 #>>46182769 #>>46183010 #>>46183317 #>>46183396 #>>46183881 #>>46183895 #>>46184147 #>>46186438 #
grayhatter ◴[07 Dec 25 15:53 UTC] No.46182594[source]▶
> The reviewer is not a proofreader, they are checking the rigour and relevance of the work, which does not rest heavily on all of the references in a document.

I've always assumed peer review is similar to diff review. Where I'm willing to sign my name onto the work of others. If I approve a diff/pr and it takes down prod. It's just as much my fault, no?

> They are also assuming good faith.

I can only relate this to code review, but assuming good faith means you assume they didn't try to introduce a bug by adding this dependency. But I would should still check to make sure this new dep isn't some typosquatted package. That's the rigor I'm responsible for.

replies(6): >>46182658 #>>46182670 #>>46182685 #>>46182824 #>>46183276 #>>46183298 #
1. freehorse ◴[07 Dec 25 17:19 UTC] No.46183298[source]▶
A reviewer is assessing the relevance and "impact" of a paper rather than correctness itself directly. Reviewers may not even have access to the data itself that authors may have used. The way it essentially works is an editor asks the reviewers "is this paper worthy to be published in my journal?" and the reviewers basically have to answer that question. The process is actually the editor/journal's responsibility.