[fn-mote]

This seems like finding spelling errors and using them to cast the entire paper into doubt.

I am unconvinced that the particular error mentioned above is a hallucination, and even less convinced that it is a sign of some kind of rampant use of AI.

I hope to find better examples later in the comment section.

[j2kun]

I actually believe it was an AI hallucination, but I agree with you that it seems the problem is far more concentrated to a few select papers (e.g., one paper made up more than 10% of the detected errors).

[gold23]

Why don't you look at the actual article? There are several more egregious examples, e.g., the authors being cited as "John Smith and Jane Doe"

[ted_dunning]

I can see that either way. It could also be a placeholder until the actual author list is inserted. This could happen if you know the title, but not the authors and insert a temporary reference entry.

[gs17]

The first Doe and Smith example I could give that to (the title is real and the arxiv ID they give is "arXiv:2401.00001", which is definitely placeholder), but the second one doesn't match a title and has fake URL/DOI that don't actually go anywhere. There's a few that are unambiguously placeholders, but they really should have been caught in review for a conference this high up.

[mikkupikku]

How does a "placeholder citation" even happens? Either enter the citation properly now, or do it properly later. What role does a "placeholder citation" serve, besides giving you something to forget about and fuck up?

I do not believe the placeholder citation theory at all.

[recursive]

What's the big deal with one dead canary? This coal mine's productivity is at record highs!

[hojinkoh]

> This seems like finding spelling errors and using them to cast the entire paper into doubt.

Well, to be fair, I did encounter this from actual human peer reviewers before the whole LLM thing. People do that.