this post was submitted on 15 May 2026
34 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

2589 readers
43 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
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] antifuchs@awful.systems 7 points 3 weeks ago

Publish and perish!

[–] scruiser@awful.systems 6 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[–] sc_griffith@awful.systems 4 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Corey S. Powell:

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.

[–] zogwarg@awful.systems 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.]

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 3 points 2 weeks ago

people get told they have too few cites and need to add more. the result:

[–] aio@awful.systems 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

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".

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't know of any examples that aren't LLMs themselves.

[–] aio@awful.systems 6 points 3 weeks ago

Ah okay, I didn't realize that.