Sokal's paper was carefully hand-written, so a somewhat different situation. His goal was to show that if you used scientific jargon in a highly metaphorical wa

Sokal's paper was carefully hand-written, so a somewhat different situation. His goal was to show that if you used scientific jargon in a highly metaphorical way that flattered the ideological views of the editors but was pretty hilariously shallow (e.g. casually analogizing the axiom of choice in mathematics to pro-choice politics), it could get accepted. He didn't aim to show that you could auto-generate such a paper, though, merely that a human could construct one. Unlike the papers here, Sokal's paper is also not really gibberish. It's well-written and coherent in a certain surface-level sense, it's just that what it's arguing is nonsense. It strings together coherent paragraphs out of coherent sentences, in an argument that goes somewhere and which you can follow... but the argument itself is ridiculous, put together out of hilarious non sequiturs and puns masquerading as reasoning. The SciGen papers are gibberish on a much more literal level, in that their paragraphs don't actually make sense, their abstracts don't match the subject in their titles, etc.