Can we just call them "lies" and "fabrications" which is what they are? If I write the same, you will call them "made up citations" and "academic dishonesty".

One can use AI to help them write without going all the way to having it generate facts and citations.

As long as the submissions are on behalf of humans we should. The humans should accept the consequences too.

Ars has often gone with “confabulation”:

>Confabulation was coined right here on Ars, by AI-beat columnist Benj Edwards, in Why ChatGPT and Bing Chat are so good at making things up (Apr 2023).

https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/researchers-describe-h...

>Generative AI is so new that we need metaphors borrowed from existing ideas to explain these highly technical concepts to the broader public. In this vein, we feel the term "confabulation," although similarly imperfect, is a better metaphor than "hallucination." In human psychology, a "confabulation" occurs when someone's memory has a gap and the brain convincingly fills in the rest without intending to deceive others.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/04/why-a...

That is a key point: they are fabrications, not hallucinations.

[dead]