> 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"?

▲

LPisGood 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Fraud requires intent to deceive _or_ reckless disregard, sometimes called, “conscious indifference” for the veracity of the statement asserted.

▲

dataflow 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No. One single hallucinated citation on a document with you as an author is not evidence of your reckless disregard for anything. These exaggerations are crazy and you would absolutely deny such accusations if you missed your co-author's AI hallucinating a citation on your manuscript too. At best it would be careless, if you really relish extrapolating from one data point and smearing people's character based on that. Not reckless. It's quite literally the difference between going five miles per hour over the speed limit versus fifty.

	▲	toast0 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If your co-author inserted the fradulent reference, I agree that you may not have committed fraud. But your co-author did, and you didn't check their work. and knowing that you didn't check their work, you signed off on it. You didn't pick your co-author very well, but arXiv lacks investigative powers to determine which co-author did the bad, so they all get the consequence.
	▲	algorithmsRcool an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Allowing hallucinated content or citations into your work is an act of carelessness and disregard for the time of people that are going to read your paper and it should be policed as such. And flatly, if a person can't be bothered to check their damn work before uploading it, why should anyone else invest their time in reading it seriously?
	▲	ktallett an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How are you suggesting the fake citation came about? Why are you writing papers and not having actually read the source you took the material from?

▲

zeusdclxvi 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you are using AI-hallucinated references in scientific papers then there is some obvious intent to deceive there

▲

NiloCK 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

I'm about as pro AI-as-a-research--and-writing-assistant and anti AI-witchhunt as they come, but I simply cannot parse what I've quoted here.

Posting slop to arxiv is blatant deception. Posting an article is an attestation that the article is a genuine engagement with the literature. If you're posting things to arxiv that are not sincere engagements with the literature, you are attempting to deceive.

	▲	protocolture an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>I'm about as pro AI-as-a-research--and-writing-assistant and anti AI-witchhunt as they come, but I simply cannot parse what I've quoted here. Ditto. And its only 1 year. Like its about the most reasonable thing they could have done.

▲

toast0 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue"?

This part seemed reasonable too. I'm not in academia, but my understanding is most people writing papers intend for them to be accepted by reputable peer-reviewed venues, but post to arXiv because those venues don't always allow for simple distribution.

If your papers aren't going to be accepted at reputable venues and you posted slop to arXiv before (and they noticed it!), seems reasonable that they only want reputable stuff from you in the future?