Consideration @arxiv authors: Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your title as an writer of a paper, every writer takes full duty for all its contents, regardless of how the contents have been generated.
If generative AI instruments generate inappropriate language, plagiarized content material, biased content material, errors, errors, incorrect references, or deceptive content material, and that output is included in scientific works, it’s the duty of the writer(s).
We have now just lately clarified our penalties for this. If a submission incorporates incontrovertible proof that the authors didn’t test the outcomes of LLM technology, this implies we are able to’t belief something within the paper.
The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv adopted by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions should first be accepted at a good peer-reviewed venue.
Examples of incontrovertible proof: hallucinated references, meta-comments from the LLM (“here’s a 200 phrase abstract; would you want me to make any modifications?”; “the info on this desk is illustrative, fill it in with the actual numbers out of your experiments”)
