If you are an author whose work is on the ACM DL, I'd like to strongly encourage you to check the accuracy of the AI Summary of your paper, and send feedback to the ACM on this feature and the inaccuracies in your summary. See more here: https://dl.acm.org/generative-ai/summarizations

Please boost, repost, and otherwise steal this post to reach other authors.

In long:

The ACM has begun rolling out "Digital Library Premium" features. A very notable one is AI Summaries of papers, which displace the author written abstract with an AI generated summary of the paper on the front page for the paper.

Of the several I've checked, they all contain subtle inaccuracies that would VERY EASILY mislead even experts familiar with the work.

This is a HUGE DISSERVICE TO SCIENCE. These summaries might appear to make science more accessible, but subtle errors introduced into the authors original text is the very opposite of making science more accessible. This will mislead rather than educate.

The ACM has a feature to send feedback on these summaries. Open your DOI, and look for the "Feedback" button on the right of the page, or the "Send Feedback" link in the footer. (You might need to disable ad-blockers, as this services uses mopinion.com)

The ACM is requesting this feedback, and it's important to let them know that such "hallucinations" are not solvable:

These tools were designed in consultation with a diverse group of Digital Library stakeholders and will continue to evolve as Artificial Intelligence advances. We are continuously tuning our Foundational Model to optimize readability and we conduct regular audits for hallucinations and other errors. We are very interested in your thoughts and suggestions- please leave them by clicking the "Feedback" button on the far right of this page. If you find a problem with a specific AI-generated summary, please return to that summary and click the Feedback there.

More aggressively, you might email dl-team@hq.acm.org (also linked in the footer).

Update 1: It seems the ACM no longer displaces the abstract with these summaries, so I can hope this feedback has been helpful in affecting change.

Update 2: It seems these summaries have been generated on papers whose license may forbid it, such as CC-BY-ND. If you have a restrictive license on your paper, you may check whether it’s being followed and send further feedback if not.

Thanks to @wilbowma for raising issue with GenAI features in the ACM DL for premium users.

It took a little effort to check this, but by going through our uni library I can access ACM articles as premium user.

The screenshot (of a paper by Carsten Eickhoff) shows the issue: the DL displays an AI generated summary **instead of** the author's avstract. You must first click on "abstract" to see the actual text.

A horrible design that **must"" be reverted!

1/2

🚨 They are bringing back #ChatControl 🚨

Hummelgaard doesn't understand that no means no.

Discussion is scheduled for tomorrow, so act now: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/

#No2Backdoors #Privacy #Security

Source: https://noyb.eu/en/eu-commission-about-wreck-core-principles-gdpr

https://netzpolitik.org/2025/interne-dokumente-eu-staaten-wollen-chatkontrolle-gesetz-ohne-weitere-aenderungen/

Bien pire que ne pas planter d'arbres : détruire le peu d'espaces sains qu'il reste. Et c'est ce qu'Ottawa va faire à fond les ballons. L'économie a encore gagné sur la vie 💀

Ottawa confirme la destruction autorisée de 1900 m2 d’habitats protégés du chevalier cuivré - https://www.ledevoir.com/actualites/environnement/930810/ottawa-confirme-destruction-autorisee-1900-m2-habitats-proteges-chevalier-cuivre

This message can seem weird, until you tap on the sigma symbol at the bottom #Fedilab

\[ \int_0^1 x^2 + y^2 \ dx \]

\[ a_1^2 + a_2^2 = a_3^2 \]

\[ (a^n)^{r+s} = a^{nr+ns} \]