The flood of AI slop has pushed arXiv, an open-access academic research platform, to start enforcing penalties against authors who waste everyone’s time and resources by submitting AI-hallucinated content. Vibe-researchers face a 1-year ban.
ArXiv authors take full responsibility for the content they post, irrespective of how the content was generated, says Thomas G. Dietterich, an emeritus professor of computer science at Oregon State University and current Chair of the CS Section of arXiv. He posted a thread clarifying arXiv’s Code of Conduct.
This is not an updated policy, but rather a formal clarification and announcement of enforcement. ArXiv will hold authors accountable for AI-generated inappropriate language, plagiarized or biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, and other misleading content included in scientific works.
“The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue,” Dietterich announced on X.
“If a submission contains incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation, this means we can’t trust anything in the paper.”
Dietterich also explains that the decisions will be based on “incontrovertible evidence,” such as hallucinated references and meta-comments from LLMs like “here is a 200-word summary,” “the data in this table is illustrative, fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments,” or “would you like me to make any changes?”
While the change was generally well-received by the community, several commenters raised concerns about this approach.
AI-generated papers might list other researchers as ghost co-authors without their knowledge – Dietterich didn’t fully explain whether they might get penalized.
Justin Angel expressed doubts that the policy might be selective depending on institutional privilege and personal notoriety. Dietterich agreed that biases can’t be completely eliminated and hoped that a “standard LLM detection algorithm” can scrutinize papers.
“Every meta-analysis and review on LLM writing detection says the technology doesn't work. How will you apply a biased technology in a fair and consistent way?” Angel asked.
Some others also suggested that rejecting AI-generated works would be a better solution rather than an outright ban.
“I disagree. Every submission to arXiv (or any other venue) consumes resources. Irresponsible authors waste those resources,” Dietterich responded.
Skeptics also doubt whether automated solutions can reliably catch AI use. Some users on Hacker News noted that AI tools are already available that scrub known AI artifacts, and the arms race might not be in favor of arXiv.
“I bet, since this has been posted, someone here has already vibecoded a reference checker that they plan to put behind a subscription,” one of the Hacker News users joked.
Other academic institutions are also attempting to curb AI use. The Independent reports that Princeton University scrapped its honor code for the first time in 133 years and will soon require supervised examination in an attempt to stop students from cheating with AI. Vilnius University previously expelled ten students over AI use.
There are doubts about whether automated systems can reliably detect AI use. Some Hacker News users even suggested that such efforts will be defeated by the opposite – AI tools designed to remove AI artifacts from papers.
Unlock more exclusive Cybernews content on YouTube.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are markedmarked