Discussion

• @tdietterich Thomas G. Dietterich on x

  Attention @arxiv authors: Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated. 1/

• @martinmbauer Martin Bauer on x

  I think it's good that arxiv demands accountability from authors, especially when using AI Also, this would be a good opportunity to review the policy to arbitrarily reclassify papers even if they have been published and peer reviewed as in @PhillipHelbig s case

• @ziv_ravid Ravid Shwartz Ziv on x

  We must think about how to handle the fact that LLMs can generate papers without any human intervention, but this is not the way. Also, I want to see the arXiv ban senior PIs who upload 40 papers a year.

• @vladtenev Vlad Tenev on x

  Use @HarmonicMath Aristotle to avoid the ArXiv ban

• @dggoldst Dan Goldstein on x

  arxiv imposing a 1 year ban on authors who submit hallucinated references is good. Authors should be able to write with AI but need to be fully accountable for catching that level of error. Doesn't matter if humans also sometimes cite non-existent things. 1 year ban them too.

• @redtachyon Ariel on x

  We do need to punish bad actors, and it's more important now than ever before. Science is drowning in slop and it's only getting worse. FWIW a lifetime ~ban is a bit harsh and I'd probably prefer something slightly more nuanced, like two strikes or multi-year (but not permanent)

• @zeke_darwin Zeke Darwin on x

  If you leave AI hallucinations in your paper why would we trust anything else published in the paper? There's a difference between using AI to help you and copy/pasting AI's words into a paper without even checking whether or not it's accurate or entirely fabricated. This is a

• @lucaamb Luca Ambrogioni on x

  A lifetime arxiv ban (arxiving after pubs is meaningless) can completely wreck someone career Doing that for a single slip unconsequential slip on an otherwise good paper is completely reckless Society is changing fast, we need to support people. Not punish them.

• @roydanroy Dan Roy on x

  There's a lot of controversy brewing around arXiv's decision to penalize authors who post unchecked AI generated content. The impulse is correct, IMO, simply on grounds of efficiency: it is much cheaper to insist the authors vet their work first, rather than distributing the

• @dimitrispapail Dimitris Papailiopoulos on x

  Found myself posting papers to GitHub instead of arXiv lately. No gatekeeping, is in the same repo as the code, one link for everything, and gets uploaded immediately. Makes you wonder what arXiv's actual value is.

• @rexdouglass @rexdouglass on x

  What? If you upload a preprint with an editing mistake you get a one year ban from preprints? Because AI tooling mistakes are worse than the *checks notes* pacific garbage patch of human mistakes? [image]

• @deliprao @deliprao on x

  If you AI agents assist writing your paper and don't want to go to arXiv jail, our recent work publishes a tool that mitigates bibtex citation hallucination via the agent's skill interface. You will have to add something like “use the clibib skill to discover new bibtex citations

• @dorotheabaur Dorothea Baur on x

  A few months ago I suggested that papers with hallucinated references should be desk-rejected and authors banned for one year. Great to see “my wish come true”, at least at arXiv! Here is my analysis of “counterarguments”: https://dorotheabaur.ch/... [image]

• @tdietterich Thomas G. Dietterich on x

  If generative AI tools generate inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content, and that output is included in scientific works, it is the responsibility of the author(s). 2/

• @tdietterich Thomas G. Dietterich on x

  The penalty 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. 4/

• @tdietterich Thomas G. Dietterich on x

  @JustinAngel @arxiv I agree that there could be biases in our pipeline. We apply a standard LLM detection algorithm to identify papers that need scrutiny. Moderators may also be biased. We would love to collaborate with researchers to study the bias and effectiveness of our opera…

• @quasilocal Steve McCormick on x

  Absolutely astounded at people coming out of the woodwork to complain against this...

• @tdietterich Thomas G. Dietterich on x

  Examples of incontrovertible evidence: hallucinated references, meta-comments from the LLM ("here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?"; “the data in this table is illustrative, fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments") end/

• @quasilocal Steve McCormick on x

  I would love to see a major publisher do similar. And even more importantly, ban these people who intentionally fabricate data or buy/sell authorship. Just banned from all the punisher's journals immediately.

• @thomasfbloom Thomas Bloom on x

  Many people are not actually reading this. Arxiv is -not- banning the use of AI, or papers which used AI to generate proofs, code, etc. They are banning people who upload papers in which the AI content was (very clearly) not actually checked by the human author(s).

• @tdietterich Thomas G. Dietterich on x

  We have recently clarified our penalties for this. If a submission contains incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation, this means we can't trust anything in the paper. 3/

• @emollick Ethan Mollick on x

  Making humans responsible for their AI use seems like an incredibly reasonable way to address problems & opportunities in the use of AI for academic research, at least in the short term (autonomous scientific work will require different solutions).

• @justinangel Justin Angel on x

  @tdietterich @arxiv 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.

• @giffmana Lucas Beyer on x

  @tdietterich @arxiv Very good, please strongly enforce it.

• @dr_atoosa Atoosa Kasirzadeh on x

  A neat example of updating our professional norms in the face of new technology. Bold, necessary move by arXiv to push back against the flurry of AI slop content published on its repository.

• @m2saxon Michael Saxon on x

  When the first overdelegated oversubscribed advisor pyramid lab gets effectively banned for a year because the undergrad's unchecked slop related work section goes all the way back up the chain and hits the advisor, there will be much gnashing of teeth. still prob a good policy

• @karlbode.com Karl Bode on bluesky

  throw in six months of mandatory community service for good measure [embedded post]

• @samleecole Sam Cole on bluesky

  arXiv is requiring people who submit work to the repository to.... read it like, one time before they hit send www.404media.co/new-arxiv-ru...

• @josephcox Joseph Cox on bluesky

  ArXiv is going to ban researchers for a year if they are caught submitting AI slop.  ArXiv told us it's a one strike rule: do it once, you're out.  —  www.404media.co/new-arxiv-ru...

• r/PhD r on reddit

  ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop

• r/technology r on reddit

  ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop

• r/MachineLearning r on reddit

  arXiv implements 1-year ban for papers containing incontrovertible evidence of unchecked LLM-generated errors, such as hallucinated references or results. …

• r/MachineLearning r on reddit

  Backlash against Arxiv's proposed 1 year ban is genuinely perplexing.  [D]

• r/ResearchML r on reddit

  ArXiv to Ban Researchers for a Year if They Submit AI Slop