Comment by Lerc
1 day ago
So the headline says
>GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers
And I'm left wondering if they mean 100 papers or 100 hallucinations
The subheading says
>GPTZero's analysis 4841 papers accepted by NeurIPS 2025 show there are at least 100 with confirmed hallucinations
Which accidentally a word, but seems to clarify that they do legitimately mean 100 papers.
A later heading says
>Table of 100 Hallucinated Citations in Published Across 53 NeurIPS Papers
Which suggests either the opposite, or that they chose a subset of their findings to point out a coincidentally similar number of incidents.
How many papers did they find hallucinations in? I'm still not certain. Is it 100, 53 or some other number altogether? Does their quality of scrutiny match the quality of their communication. If they did in-fact find 100 Hallucinations in 53 papers, would the inconsistency against their claim of "papers accepted by NeurIPS 2025 show there are at least 100 with confirmed hallucinations" meet their own bar for a hallucination?
They counted multiple hallucinations in a single paper toward the 100, and explicitly call out one paper with 13 incorrect citations that are claimed (reasonably, IMO) to be hallucinated.
So you are saying their claim of
>GPTZero's analysis 4841 papers accepted by NeurIPS 2025 show there are at least 100 with confirmed hallucinations
Is not true. [Edit - that sounds a bit harsh making it seem like you are accusing them, it's more that this is a logical conclusion of your(imo reasonable) interpretation.
I think it is true and intentionally vague for marketing purposes. And FWIW, I support the effort writ large