←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: 0s | 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 #
1. not2b ◴[07 Dec 25 18:35 UTC] No.46183895[source]▶
Agreed. I used to review lots of submissions for IEEE and similar conferences, and didn't consider it my job to verify every reference. No one did, unless the use of the reference triggered an "I can't believe it said that" reaction. Of course, back then, there wasn't a giant plagiarism machine known to fabricate references, so if tools can find fake references easily the tools should be used.