Comment by fn-mote
1 day ago
This seems like finding spelling errors and using them to cast the entire paper into doubt.
I am unconvinced that the particular error mentioned above is a hallucination, and even less convinced that it is a sign of some kind of rampant use of AI.
I hope to find better examples later in the comment section.
I actually believe it was an AI hallucination, but I agree with you that it seems the problem is far more concentrated to a few select papers (e.g., one paper made up more than 10% of the detected errors).
What's the big deal with one dead canary? This coal mine's productivity is at record highs!
Why don't you look at the actual article? There are several more egregious examples, e.g., the authors being cited as "John Smith and Jane Doe"
I can see that either way. It could also be a placeholder until the actual author list is inserted. This could happen if you know the title, but not the authors and insert a temporary reference entry.
The first Doe and Smith example I could give that to (the title is real and the arxiv ID they give is "arXiv:2401.00001", which is definitely placeholder), but the second one doesn't match a title and has fake URL/DOI that don't actually go anywhere. There's a few that are unambiguously placeholders, but they really should have been caught in review for a conference this high up.
1 reply →