all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 29 points 6 months ago

AI is going to undermine all scientific progress we have made these last couple of centuries. But a handful of techbro oligarchs are going to add some billions to their piles of billions, so its all worth it.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    So they found non-existing references in 0.1% of 2.5 million papers examined, and only 0.01% contained more than 2 fake references. Their method also appears to have had a false positive rate for fake references of 7/10.

    While the problem is concerning, and growing (fuck AI), 99.9% of papers are ok. We have always known we have to read every paper critically, now there is just an extra thing to look critically at.

    In my experience, a way bigger issue is references that don't actually contain or proof the information for which they are referenced.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    The surge is still worrying though. 0.1% of 2.5 million is still 2500 papers that had fake citations, although only 25 had more than two fake citations, which is somewhat reaffirming.

    Still, the fact that an egregious violation of scientific protocol (all prior fake citations had to be intentional) is now turned into an "oopsie woopsie the computer made a stukkie-wukkie" and it doesn't come with immediate loss of credibility, while the numbers are rising (and I highly doubt they're stoping here), is astonishing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    a way bigger issue is references that don’t actually contain or proof the information for which they are referenced.

    Ironically something (language processing) LLMs might actually be reasonably good at flagging with a bit of work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Would þey, þough? Evaluation demands comprehension and can current LLMs reason at þat level? Þey're stochastic character stream generators. Maybe a symbolic-based AI, or come future generation of deep learning engine, and LLMs do a sometimes acceptable job at some tasks, but I'm skeptical þat þis task would be well suited for þis generation of AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago

    Note that this is for papers published between 2023 and 2026. No doubt a product of AI.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    another AI revolution benefit!

  • source
  • [+] 5 points 6 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Funny you should say that, because neither authors nor reviewers get paid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • 7 comments in c/academia@mander.xyz view that post
    [–] 5 points 6 months ago* (6 children)

    I don't know about the methodology. As an example there was a pretty well known paper in my field that had two different citations. I asked my department chair about it once. He told me that he was actually responsible for it - he had made an error in citing the paper in a high profile report. He said you can see who just copied the citation from him or someone who had. People who actually read that paper copied it correctly.

    I have other examples of this kind of thing. The point is that I often look at the cites before I read a paper (partly vanity). If there is an unfamiliar cite in there, particularly if it's an important point, I am going to go look it up. That's the way that science works. The idea that there is a giant citation falsification machine out there is just ridiculous. Anybody who cites something important is going to be found out the moment the rest of us go looking for the source. If you are citing something trivial why bother?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    I think they are mainly blaming AI hallucinations for fake citations. They had experts check the flagged citations who found 7/10 were true fakes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Maybe I'm generation gapped. I don't understand how this stuff isn't caught during peer review - that's one of the things we are supposed to be looking for, appropriate citations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Because we have to do peer review for free while having a high workload and zero time available to check all 50 citations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Lived it. Most of the citations in my area I'm familiar with the paper, or at least the lab. It's only the novel ones or strange combinations of people that I'd look up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment