3 ms·
It is very concerning that these hallucinations passed through peer review. It's not like peer review is a fool-proof method or anything, but the fact that revi
by dtartarotti 8mo ago
It is very concerning that these hallucinations passed through peer review. It's not like peer review is a fool-proof method or anything, but the fact that reviewers did not check all references and noticed clearly bogus ones is alarming and could be a sign that the article authors weren't the only ones using LLMs in the process...
- amanaplanacanal 8mo agoIs it common for peer reviewers to check references? Somehow I thought they mostly focused on whether the experiment looked reasonable and the conclusions followed.
- emil-lp 8mo agoIn journal publications it is, but without DOIs it's difficult. In conference publications, it's less common. Conference publications (like NEURips) is treated as announcement of results, not verified.
- matusp 8mo agoNobody in ML or AI is verifying all your references. Reviewers will point out if you miss a super related work, but that's it. This is especially true with the recent (last two decades?) inflation in citation counts. You regularly have papers with 50+ references for all kinds of claims and random semirelated work. The citation culture is really uninspiring.