ArXiv will ban researchers who upload papers full of AI slop

"Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated. If generative AI tools generate inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content, and that output is included in scientific works, it is the responsibility of the author(s)."

"We have recently clarified our penalties for this. If a submission contains incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation, this means we can't trust anything in the paper. The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue."

"Examples of incontrovertible evidence: hallucinated references, meta-comments from the LLM ("here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?"; "the data in this table is illustrative, fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments")"

By signing as an author, each author takes full responsibility for all contents of a paper, regardless of how the contents were generated. If generative AI tools produce inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content, and that output is included in scientific works, the responsibility remains with the authors. If a submission contains incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check LLM-generated results, trust in the paper is not possible. The penalty is a one-year ban from arXiv, followed by a requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue first. Incontrovertible evidence includes hallucinated references and meta-comments from the LLM indicating it generated summaries or illustrative data rather than verified experimental results.

Read at The Verge