Imagine the staggering labor involved in sending around an email that says, "Nobody did anything dumb like using AI to generate the citations, right?" I mean, that could take seconds.
this post was submitted on 15 May 2026
45 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
2577 readers
198 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Also what is even the meaning of adding citations if you never came across the source?
[I vaguely understand that there is a lot of window-dressing that comes with writing papers, but this is too perverse.]
fun fact: even vixra has had an anti ai paper policy for idk how long, at least ten months
https://bsky.app/profile/scgriffith.bsky.social/post/3lsek4cpnpk2n
Publish and perish!
It's not quite clear to me that
We rely on some standard LLM detectors to focus our attention on papers that need to be checked.
implies they are using LLMs themselves. The phrase "LLM detector" is a bit ambiguous and could mean "LLM being used as a detector" or just "classifier program designed to detect LLM output".
I don't know of any examples that aren't LLMs themselves.
Ah okay, I didn't realize that.
Every author named as writing a paper bears full responsibility for the paper.
This has the nice added bonus that it will likely catch PI's that put their name on their grad students paper without actually doing the mentoring they were supposed to. It will also catch professors that coast (or at least inflate their citation index) by getting their name on papers they barely contributed to.
I am quite convinced that, under these arxive guidelines, every single major PI in the field will be banned within a few years.
Catching a lot of PIs that have allowed and even encouraged slop submission is a good thing in my book.