ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
> You expect us to actually read the papers we cite?!
yes, lol!
https://www.404media.co/new-arxiv-rules-ai-generated-papers-ban/
ArXiv announces a ban on AI content and the responses are hilarious.
> You expect us to actually read the papers we cite?!
yes, lol!
https://www.404media.co/new-arxiv-rules-ai-generated-papers-ban/
Is... that reply by Miller serious? Please tell me it wasn't? π¬

@tdietterich @arxiv So this means you expect every author to check every citation and make sure that every citation is real and accurate? What if it's beyond the ability of one of the authors to verify one of the citations because that citation is in a language he doesn't know or concerns technical
@docpop @FediThing Well, his point is *slightly* more nuanced in that he's arguing "What if *I* checked the citations I added, but this other guy I co-author with did not on his part of the paper? Why am I responsible?"
To which I reply "sucks to be you, my guy."
@adriano @docpop @FediThing I think what some people miss, possibly intentionally, is that "responsible" doesn't mean "if your co-author fabricates stuff and lies to you, you will be drummed out of academia even if you had no way of knowing".
It just means that one will be expected to take reasonable steps to avoid such situations, and to remedy them when they emerge.
@adriano @docpop @FediThing Depending on what is usual in his academic field, his thoughts are maybe less βHow the f is he a professor?!?β outlandish than the Fedi commenters here think.
For papers with lots of authors and quite strict division of labour for different parts of the paper and different sub-groups of authors, I can very well see that it maybe has not been usual up to now to know every other author and double check their work.
Still seems net positive to me to reinforce responsibility for things with your name on it.