The penalty [for LLM-hallucinated info] is a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue.
2026-05-14 22:32 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@lvxferre@mander.xyz 2026-05-15 03:43
[Sorry for the double reply] \*slow clap\* I'm not *completely* opposed to people using large models as a writing aid, specially for technical stuff. However: if you're publishing a scientific paper, it's your job to check it twice, thrice, ~~tenice~~ ten times, to ensure all info there is accurate, factual, and well grounded. If you can't do it, you shouldn't be littering the commons with your rubbish. That applies even to references. In fact, references are part of the process: knowledge isn't born ex bloody nihilo dammit, people should be able to check the references of your paper and find earlier literature about the subject.
-
@tristynalxander@mander.xyz 2026-05-15 02:10
Good. If you can't be bothered to read your own papers, you shouldn't be in academia.
-
@lvxferre@mander.xyz 2026-05-15 03:36
> [Justin Angel] My guess is that this policy will be applied selectively depending on institutional privilege and personal notoriety. It'll end up as a tool of silencing unconnected individuals vs. promoting better scientific discourse. // I aspire to be wrong. Doesn't it sound weird that someone immediately assumes (i.e. makes up) the policy will be implemented unfairly, as soon it is announced? Well, if you [check their profile](https://xcancel.com/JustinAngel), it doesn't: > Justin Angel // @JustinAngel // AI, iOS & Android dev. Worked at Meta, Uber, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft building apps, developer platforms, and hardware. Tweeting about LLM psychotherapy. Plus almost all of their tweets are about LLMs. This stinks "competing interests" from a distance.
-
@gibmiser@lemmy.world 2026-05-14 23:36
Weak ass penalty