Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| From | phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.edu, comp.ai.philosophy, alt.books, alt.politics.media, rec.arts.books, misc.writing |
| Subject | Re: Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done? |
| Date | 2026-05-12 06:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6gll4Fs3ppU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <20260512.024503.fea93242@mixmin.net> <eb950l1ibvjm1povpc1s3q808nlro4bitq@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 6 groups.
Steve Hayes wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2026 02:45:03 +0100, Lawfare Review > <noreply@mixmin.net> wrote: > >> Earlier this year, computer scientist Guillaume Cabanac received a >> notification from Google Scholar that one of his publications had >> been cited in a paper published in the International Dental Journal1. >> That was unexpected, because his research on spotting fabricated >> papers doesn’t typically intersect with dentistry. “I was very >> surprised to see that I couldn’t recognize my own reference,” >> says Cabanac, who is based at the University of Toulouse in France. >> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00969-z > > A friend of mine got an LLM bot (Claude) to write an academic paper, > which he then sent to me. I read it as I would if I have been asked to > do a peer review for a journal, and he gave that feedback to the bot, > and sent the revised paper to a journal, which, unsurprisingly (to me > at any rate) rejected it. Were you just hung over that day or did you do a shoddy job because you look down on LLMs? If you had reviewed it better, you know it would have been accepted. You probably saw the guy carrying a blanket around and judged him as a bad person and thus gave a bad review. Or you were just hung over. Next time do better, okay? > He also got Claude to produce a bibliography of works relevant to the > topic, which did turn out to be quite useful, though it did need > careful checking for the avoidance of hallucinations, as described > above. It gave several bogus urls. It appeared that such bots could be > a useful supplement to (but not a replacement for) the work of > reference librarians. > > I then asked my friend to test Claude's generative ability with > fiction -- got him to submit to it the first two chapters of an > unpublished novel I had written, and complete it, so I could then > compare the result with what I had actually written. The first couple > of chapters it produced were quite entertaining, but after that it > began to go off the rails. It was a children's book, and it began to > have child characters talking and behaving like adults. The plot was > thin, and turned on a complex legal point that was difficult for > adults to follow, and would probably have bored any child reader out > of their skull. It had the setting switching back and forth between > spring and autummn, with lyrical descriptions of spring blossoms in > one chapter, and falling leaves the next. > > My friend fed my comments to Claude and has sent me back a revised > text. I haven't read it yet. > > LLM bots can be useful tools but they are not AI, and are not > reliable. They are not intelligent or sentient (though the programmers > of some of them try to make them appear so). They do not "understand" > what they are fed, or what they spit out. Their use in education > should be limited to what they are good at, and one needs education > apart form LLM bots to be able to discern what they are good at and > what they are not good at. If students use them to write essays, they > will not learn that discernment. > > My friend who submitted the journal article to Claude is a nuclear > physicist, but the article he got it to write was in my field, not > his, and he rather naively trusted what Claude spat out. If it had > been in his field, his bullshit detectors would have been better > equipped to deal with it. > > In the age of so-called AI, educators need to give serious thought to > better ways of honing students' bullshit detectors. > > > -- War in the east War in the west War up north War down south War War
Back to sci.edu | Previous — Previous in thread | Find similar
Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done? Lawfare Review <noreply@mixmin.net> - 2026-05-12 02:45 +0100
Re: Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-12 05:58 +0200
Re: Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-12 06:34 +0200
Re: Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done? phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-12 06:44 -0600
csiph-web