- "He (the author) did not answer our questions asking if he used an LLM to generate text for the book. However, he told us, “reliably determining whether content (or an issue) is AI generated remains a challenge, as even human-written text can appear ‘AI-like.’ This challenge is only expected to grow, as LLMs … continue to advance in fluency and sophistication.”
Lol, that answer sounds suspiciously much like LLM generated as well ..
- You would think that Springer did the due diligence here, but what is the value of a brand such as Springer if they let these AI slops through their cracks?
This is an opportunity for brands to sell verifiability, i.e., that the content they are selling has been properly vetted, which was obviously not the case here.
by ludicrousdispla
3 subcomments
- >> LLM-generated citations might look legitimate, but the content of the citations might be fabricated.
Friendy reminder that the entire output from an LLM is fabricated.
- One of the potential uses of AI that I have most wanted is automated citation lookup and validation.
First check if the citation references a real thing. Then actually read and summarize the referenced text and give a confidence level that it says what was claimed.
But no, we have AI that are compounding the problem. That says something about unaligned incentives.
- Unfortunately not surprising, the quality of a lot of textbooks has been bad for a long time. Students aren't discerning and lecturers often don't try the book out themselves.
- I saw this recently on some congress abstracts. I think it is just AI generated content. References look real and don’t exist.
by b00ty4breakfast
0 subcomment
- This seems like the very thing that AI advocates would want to avoid. It certainly doesn't fill me, as an outsider to the whole thing, with much confidence for the future of AI-generated content but maybe I'm not the target sucker....err, I mean target demographic
by Vinayak_A_B
4 subcomments
- If I make a citation verifier, will conference/journal guys pay for it? First verify if the citation is legit, like the paper actually exists, after that another LLM that reads the paper cited and gives a rating out of 10, whether it fits the context or not. [ONLY FOR LIT SURVEY]
- A next development would be people developing and using citation checkers. That would fix just that problem. The deeper underlying quality problem with statements in the text often remaining unverified/incorrect would remain unfixed.
If the authors are to manually and genuinely put some citations, chances would be higher that they are familiar with the cited work and the statement for which the work is cited is actually corroborated by the citation.
- So was the entire text machine-generated?
Or did they take a human-written text and asked a machine to generate references/citations for it?
- Springer? You mean the publisher we are currently fighting so they won't mess up our peer-reviewed research paper that we wrote and paid for the privilege for them to mess up (ehm, sorry "publish")? Colour me surprised.
by PeterStuer
0 subcomment
- Would it be possible to 'squat' the non existent references and turbo boost oneself into 'most cited author' territory? :)
- We are approaching publishers' heaven, where AI reviewers review AI written books and articles (with AI editors fixing their style), allowing publishers to keep collecting billions from essentially mandatory subscriptions from institutions.
- Bad news for old-school people who still love books as a learning resource.
by MengerSponge
0 subcomment
- My "Plagiarism Machine #1 Fan" shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt.
by dwayne_dibley
1 subcomments
- 'Based on a tip from a reader, we checked 18 of the 46 citations in the book.' Why not just check them all?
Hacker News