upvote

points

by malfist18 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby doc_ick18 hours ago|
[-]
Legal names aren’t 1:1 with author names. If they were, who’d verify that?
reply
upvoteby otterley17 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Validating someone’s association with an institution by name seems like a reasonable thing to do. Perhaps it wasn’t done in the past, but times and circumstances have changed. Trust in authorship is lower than ever, and for good reason.
reply
upvoteby doc_ick16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It likely is, but that’s also on the assumption every author has to be in association with an institution and it’s quick to verify that.

What good reason is there for trust in authorship to be low? I would likely agree for if it’s related to llm-slop.

reply
upvoteby otterley15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Plagiarism, fictional data, and unreproducible results have been a problem for a some time, and LLMs are now increasingly standing in authors’ shoes. In a system that rewards production over all else, people are naturally going to be incentivized to cut corners.

Some cultures that are increasingly participating in the scientific process don’t even agree as to what the ethical boundaries are.

reply
upvoteby doc_ick15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
True, and thanks to llms are of those are being “exploited” exponentially more.

“In a system that rewards production over all else, people are naturally going to be incentivized to cut corners.” That sounds like the human condition and or capitalism, advancements in cars, weapons, toys, etc…

The agreement on ethical boundaries seems like a conversation held at a conference level, otherwise place a governs place b and that never goes well.

I agree fully replicable experiments is a minimum for research papers. Even with caveats it should be required. That being said those who don’t want to fully prove their claims will find another venue. I think frontier models should curb or have provably verified output (chatgpt did say x) for the majority cases to help reduce or help identify the slop.

reply
upvoteby otterley14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> That sounds like the human condition and or capitalism, advancements in cars, weapons, toys, etc…

Indeed it is! That's why we set up rules of the game/road/etc. that we expect participants to adhere to, and impose sanctions when they don't. We're in that uncomfortable place today where we're trying to figure out how our rules should adapt to this new era.

Life is messy.

reply
upvoteby doc_ick13 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Oh no I fully agree with that. We just have to find a medium that people can easily use but can’t abuse. The constant cat and mouse security problem given non-infinite money. In-person defense would solve this but I think the cost is too high.
reply
upvoteby malfist17 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Even if it's not a legal name, are you going to review the CV of an applicant who used a different name on every publication they claim authorship of? It's going to be pretty obvious someone is being nefarious
reply
upvoteby doc_ick15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The CV of an applicant is definitely different. For a job application where a cv were used, that’s a slower/paid process where attention should be paid to details. However what’s a difference to a conference with a “young upcoming author” vs llm-Lorem ipsum author name?
reply