←back to thread

Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions

(gptzero.me)
504 points puttycat | 3 comments | 07 Dec 25 13:16 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
WWWWH ◴[07 Dec 25 19:50 UTC] No.46184528[source]▶
Surely this is gross professional misconduct? If one of my postdocs did this they would be at risk of being fired. I would certainly never trust them again. If I let it get through, I should be at risk.

As a reviewer, if I see the authors lie in this way why should I trust anything else in the paper? The only ethical move is to reject immediately.

I acknowledge mistakes and so on are common but this is different league bad behaviour.

replies(3): >>46186748 #>>46189798 #>>46191195 #
1. make3 ◴[08 Dec 25 11:47 UTC] No.46191195[source]▶
Isn't this mostly a set of citation typos? To me this mostly calls for better bibtex checking, writing and checking bibtex is super annoying
replies(1): >>46194374 #
2. urspx ◴[08 Dec 25 16:37 UTC] No.46194374[source]▶
Forgetting authors, misspelling them or the journals, putting a wrong digit etc... could be citation typos. I don't see how you add 5 non-existing authors and put a different—but conceptually plausible—journal in the bibtex.

Besides, I would think most people are using bibliographic managers like Zotero&co..., which will pull metadata through DOIs or such.

The errors look a lot more like what happens when you ask an LLM for some sources on xyz.

replies(1): >>46196147 #
3. make3 ◴[08 Dec 25 18:53 UTC] No.46196147[source]▶
I think it's not uncommon to ask an LLM for the bibtex for a paper you know about, & it might mess it up, but that doesn't feel like a fireable offense