> It's just one darn hallucinated citation for heaven's sake, not fraud or something.

It is fraud.

> It doesn't account for the substance or quality of their work at all.

References are part of the work. If you're making up the references, what else are you making up?

> People make mistakes and a good fraction of them can learn from those mistakes. There's no need to permanently cripple someone's ability to progress their life or contribute to humanity just because an AI hallucinated a reference one time in their life.

A one year ban is not permanent. Having a negative consequence for making poor decisions seems like an inducement to learn from the mistake?

In an ideal world, one would be keeping notes on references used while doing the research that lead to writing the paper. Choosing not to do that is one poor decision.

Having a positive outlook, if asking an AI to provide references that may have been missed, one should at least verify the references exist and are relevant. Choosing not to do that is also a poor decision, even if one did take notes on references used while researching.

> It is fraud.

I think we are talking semantics here.

While fraud does require intention to deceive, I get the sentiment that hallucinated citations shouldn't be dismissed as simply carelessness. It should be something stronger than that: gross negligence or something MUCH stronger! There should absolutely be repercussions for this.

But let's not call it fraud. That word is reserved for something specific.

EDIT: someone else said "reckless disregard" equals intent or something to that effect. So I looked it up.

It appears so that is the case. "Reckless Disregard Equals Intent" in legal language.

But I am not sure if this particular clause should apply here. Perhaps it depends on what kind of research is being published? For e.g., if it is related to medical science and has a real consequence on people's health, we can then apply this?

> It is fraud.

No, it is emphatically not. Fraud requires intent to deceive.

> A one year ban is not permanent.

...what text are you reading? Nobody was calling the one-year ban permanent, or even against it. I was literally in favor of it in my comment. I explicitly said it is already plenty sufficient. What I said is there's no need to go beyond that. My entire gripe was that they very much are going beyond that with a permanent penalty. Did you completely miss where they said "...followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue"?

it's very silly, but not a big deal. Arxiv is becoming irrelevant these days anyways.

In fact would be better if they just banned AI, so we could just get off the luddite platforms.

Automated research is the future, end of story. And really it couldn't have come out at a better time, given the increasingly diminishing returns on human powered research.