4 ms·
AI tools are introducing errors in research papers. Wonder which is more common overall? Can AI spot more errors than it creates, or is it in equillibrium and
by _mitterpach 2y ago
AI tools are introducing errors in research papers.
Wonder which is more common overall? Can AI spot more errors than it creates, or is it in equillibrium and a net zero?
Other than these quips, I am actually a fan of this movement. Anything that helps in the scientific process of peer review, as long as it does not actively annoy and delay the authors is a welcome addition to the process. Papers will be written, many of them incorrectly, with statistical or procedural errors. To have a checker that can find these quickly, ideally pre-publishing, is a great thing.
- westurner 2y agoAlso pro error finding with LLMs. But concerned about tool dependency; if you can't do it without the AI, you can't support the code. "LLMs cannot find reasoning errors, but can correct them" (2023) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38353285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38353285 "New GitHub Copilot research finds 'downward pressure on code quality'" (2024) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39168105 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39168105 "AI generated code compounds technical debt" (2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43185735 : > “I don't think I have ever seen so much technical debt being created in such a short period of time" Even if trained on only formally verified code, we should not expect LLMs to produce code that passes formal verification. "Ask HN: Are there any objective measurements for AI model coding performance?" (2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43206779 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43061977#43069287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43061977#43069287 re: memory vulns, SAST DAST, Formal Verification, awesome-safety-critical