5 ms·

> It is fraud. No, it is emphatically not. Fraud requires intent to deceive. > A one year ban is not permanent. ...what text are you reading? Nobody was call

> It is fraud. No, it is emphatically not. Fraud requires intent to deceive. > A one year ban is not permanent. ...what text are you reading? Nobody was calling the one-year ban permanent, or even against it. I was literally in favor of it in my comment. I explicitly said it is already plenty sufficient. What I said is there's no need to go beyond that. My entire gripe was that they very much are going beyond that with a permanent penalty. Did you completely miss where they said "...followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue"?

zeusdclxvi 5mo ago
If you are using AI-hallucinated references in scientific papers then there is some obvious intent to deceive there
NiloCK 5mo ago
> No, it is emphatically not. D Fraud requires intent to deceive. I'm about as pro AI-as-a-research--and-writing-assistant and anti AI-witchhunt as they come, but I simply cannot parse what I've quoted here. Posting slop to arxiv is blatant deception. Posting an article is an attestation that the article is a genuine engagement with the literature. If you're posting things to arxiv that are not sincere engagements with the literature, you are attempting to deceive.
- protocolture 5mo ago
  >I'm about as pro AI-as-a-research--and-writing-assistant and anti AI-witchhunt as they come, but I simply cannot parse what I've quoted here. Ditto. And its only 1 year. Like its about the most reasonable thing they could have done.
  - dataflow 5mo ago
    > And its only 1 year No, it emphatically is not just a year! It's perpetual, and that's literally been my entire point this whole time. If it was just one year I would've had no complaints - and I made that clear from the very first comment! What part of "...followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue..." is everyone here reading and still somehow interpreting to be limited to 1 year?
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  You are equating cutting corners (ie laziness) with intentional deception and not being genuine. That doesn't seem accurate to me. In most contexts I think cutting corners would be taken to be some form of negligence or recklessness. Regardless of terminology, I agree that it's certainly punishable and certainly a serious problem.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
LPisGood 5mo ago
Fraud requires intent to deceive _or_ reckless disregard, sometimes called, “conscious indifference” for the veracity of the statement asserted.
- dataflow 5mo ago
  No. One single hallucinated citation on a document with you as an author is not evidence of your reckless disregard for anything. These exaggerations are crazy and you would absolutely deny such accusations if you missed your co-author's AI hallucinating a citation on your manuscript too. At best it would be careless, if you really relish extrapolating from one data point and smearing people's character based on that. Not reckless. It's quite literally the difference between going five miles per hour over the speed limit versus fifty.
  - toast0 5mo ago
    If your co-author inserted the fradulent reference, I agree that you may not have committed fraud. But your co-author did, and you didn't check their work. and knowing that you didn't check their work, you signed off on it. You didn't pick your co-author very well, but arXiv lacks investigative powers to determine which co-author did the bad, so they all get the consequence.
    - DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
      Do you think every co-author on a 100-author paper checks every citation? It's like saying that every member of a large software team personally reviews every line of code. It's just completely divorced from reality.
      - redsocksfan45 5mo ago
        [dead]
      - toast0 5mo ago
        How many papers have 100 authors? Again, I'm not in academia, but most of the papers I see have two to five authors; maybe I've seen one or two with ten authors. Regardless, if I'm signing my name on something, I check it out. A reference that doesn't exist is like a source release that doesn't compile. Any one of the 100 person team could have figured it out but no one did. In a 100 person team you get diffuse responsibility dynamics where checking citations is not assigned to specific people so no one does it. Or perhaps it's assigned to a single person who was also in charge of writing the citations and falsified them rather than doing the work.
toast0 5mo ago
> followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue"? This part seemed reasonable too. I'm not in academia, but my understanding is most people writing papers intend for them to be accepted by reputable peer-reviewed venues, but post to arXiv because those venues don't always allow for simple distribution. If your papers aren't going to be accepted at reputable venues and you posted slop to arXiv before (and they noticed it!), seems reasonable that they only want reputable stuff from you in the future?

zeusdclxvi 5mo ago

If you are using AI-hallucinated references in scientific papers then there is some obvious intent to deceive there

NiloCK 5mo ago

> No, it is emphatically not. D Fraud requires intent to deceive. I'm about as pro AI-as-a-research--and-writing-assistant and anti AI-witchhunt as they come, but I simply cannot parse what I've quoted here. Posting slop to arxiv is blatant deception. Posting an article is an attestation that the article is a genuine engagement with the literature. If you're posting things to arxiv that are not sincere engagements with the literature, you are attempting to deceive.

protocolture 5mo ago
>I'm about as pro AI-as-a-research--and-writing-assistant and anti AI-witchhunt as they come, but I simply cannot parse what I've quoted here. Ditto. And its only 1 year. Like its about the most reasonable thing they could have done.
- dataflow 5mo ago
  > And its only 1 year No, it emphatically is not just a year! It's perpetual, and that's literally been my entire point this whole time. If it was just one year I would've had no complaints - and I made that clear from the very first comment! What part of "...followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue..." is everyone here reading and still somehow interpreting to be limited to 1 year?
fc417fc802 5mo ago
You are equating cutting corners (ie laziness) with intentional deception and not being genuine. That doesn't seem accurate to me. In most contexts I think cutting corners would be taken to be some form of negligence or recklessness. Regardless of terminology, I agree that it's certainly punishable and certainly a serious problem.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

LPisGood 5mo ago

Fraud requires intent to deceive _or_ reckless disregard, sometimes called, “conscious indifference” for the veracity of the statement asserted.

dataflow 5mo ago
No. One single hallucinated citation on a document with you as an author is not evidence of your reckless disregard for anything. These exaggerations are crazy and you would absolutely deny such accusations if you missed your co-author's AI hallucinating a citation on your manuscript too. At best it would be careless, if you really relish extrapolating from one data point and smearing people's character based on that. Not reckless. It's quite literally the difference between going five miles per hour over the speed limit versus fifty.
- toast0 5mo ago
  If your co-author inserted the fradulent reference, I agree that you may not have committed fraud. But your co-author did, and you didn't check their work. and knowing that you didn't check their work, you signed off on it. You didn't pick your co-author very well, but arXiv lacks investigative powers to determine which co-author did the bad, so they all get the consequence.
  - DiogenesKynikos 5mo ago
    Do you think every co-author on a 100-author paper checks every citation? It's like saying that every member of a large software team personally reviews every line of code. It's just completely divorced from reality.
    - redsocksfan45 5mo ago
      [dead]
    - toast0 5mo ago
      How many papers have 100 authors? Again, I'm not in academia, but most of the papers I see have two to five authors; maybe I've seen one or two with ten authors. Regardless, if I'm signing my name on something, I check it out. A reference that doesn't exist is like a source release that doesn't compile. Any one of the 100 person team could have figured it out but no one did. In a 100 person team you get diffuse responsibility dynamics where checking citations is not assigned to specific people so no one does it. Or perhaps it's assigned to a single person who was also in charge of writing the citations and falsified them rather than doing the work.

toast0 5mo ago

> followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue"? This part seemed reasonable too. I'm not in academia, but my understanding is most people writing papers intend for them to be accepted by reputable peer-reviewed venues, but post to arXiv because those venues don't always allow for simple distribution. If your papers aren't going to be accepted at reputable venues and you posted slop to arXiv before (and they noticed it!), seems reasonable that they only want reputable stuff from you in the future?