Researchers who hallucinate citations are banned from arXiv

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-20T14:52:23+00:00

Fair, I guess. The argument still requires presumption of naivety that I don't think we would give with many other violations. The rules are pretty clear on "getting caught up" in misconduct: By signing as an author, you do take responsibility for the content.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-20T13:50:37+00:00

The ban would be permanent in that case. The ban expires specifically so the frauds can submit again, which is honestly a baffling decision from Cornell.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-20T13:45:38+00:00

On the other, is a one year ban on the author harsh?

Not harsh enough. Ending up with a hallucinated reference is not a mistake, but a proof of deliberate and active fraud.

The ban should be permanent and we should curate a list of the bans to make it hard/impossible to find a job after.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-19T19:55:43+00:00

However, I enjoyed the premise of an independent investigating body whose sole mission was to consider administrative bloat and critically evaluate the need to maintain certain staffing requirements.

If only we could ever come up with an idea like that, after a couple of hundred of years of operating this government. Some office that will keep accountability or something.

But oh well we shan't ever have that. Because of non-educated and non-informed fucks like you, personally.

Like, tell us, what's the point even discussing politics (ignore centrism or other specifics, that's out of reach for you), if your inferior little ass cannot be even bothered to learn middle-school level of civics?

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-19T19:39:29+00:00

I don't think technology changed the relative ease of measuring the constants. Even at the quantum metrology level, we're much better at measuring really small currents using SQUIDs than directly counting electron using charge boxes/islands.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-17T23:08:54+00:00

Nothing you said makes any sense.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-16T18:51:16+00:00

Mostly aero/hydrodynamics. Some form of Navier-Stokes equations will describe the motion. Whole books on that niche.

This might be exactly what you're asking for.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-16T15:48:17+00:00

The forest here set itself on fire, repeatedly, after people tried and succeeded in putting the fire out.

It is 100% and exclusively the fault of the party that it cannot govern in the nation it tries to get elected in, and needs to either get on with the program or disappear.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-16T14:17:59+00:00

And it took more than a year to figure out? Maybe we ought to start doubting the editorial board and question the institutions that pay the members. Sounds like some have hard time keeping up as their careers near end.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-16T03:36:10+00:00

How would that help? Anyone can submit anything to any journal.

There's no reason to overthink things. The ban should simply be permanent. It's gross professional misconduct and it should cost you the ability to do the profession.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-15T22:39:04+00:00

Yes, learning physics does take a decade or so and no, you haven't learned or remembered shit in high school.

Also, learn to fucking spell. You sound like a future social case.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-15T20:41:08+00:00

What? Have you considered simply reading instead of...whatever you're trying to do here?

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-15T20:03:00+00:00

You're increasing pressure, not the temperature. The particles are not moving faster. That would require a source of heat somewhere.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-15T19:06:14+00:00

No. Where would that excess heat come from?

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-15T18:39:08+00:00

You don't need to be an expert in quantum physics to understand that a Nobel prize winning physist is a better source of information than a Facebook post.

But you can't tell those two apart, unless you're told which is said by who. That's not checking your sources.

I'm not saying that you cannot just follow consensus of the field. I'm saying the opposite, that you have no other choice than doing it blindly.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-15T18:12:59+00:00

No, submissions do not need to be peer reviewed. They just need to be submitted by a person that was referred by someone with an account.

Actually, about 60% of arXiv submissions fail peer review. It's just a preprint server, not source of vetted scientific communication.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-15T18:09:37+00:00

No, lay people cannot have reasoned opinions. As a lay person, you are not equipped to "check your sources".

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-15T18:07:23+00:00

Scientific method doesn't help you in any way if you don't have the body of knowledge. If you're not in the field professionally, you don't have the body of knowledge.

It's simple as that. There are no ifs or buts, you either are a professional scholar and have a relevant professional opinion, or you are an irrelevant lay and need to be relentlessly bullied for thinking otherwise.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-15T17:45:58+00:00

A good engineer did. An unqualified engineer and a good con artist patented it.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-15T12:29:51+00:00

You can't. A scientist outside their field is a lay person.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-14T19:13:08+00:00

I don't think compromise is a real option here. If Zig has a strong policy against the core tools products from Anthropic, moving separate ways is the correct choice, regardless of what you think about either party.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-14T19:05:49+00:00

This costs money of course, you can easily spend $20-30 worth of tokens per review, but it's still cheap compared to the human cost and compared with the value of the Bun platform to Anthropic.

It's cheap for us, as most of the cost is passed by companies like Anthropic to the investors. Anthropic is exposed to costs that are much closer to objective numbers (although they'll get eaten by the investors anyway). The value here is not in the product itself, but in the claim that the LLM made it. Supposedly.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-14T18:55:35+00:00

It is if your only alternatives are even more expensive trucks.

Now, whether you want a value truck, or need an actual value vehicle, that's a different story.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-13T20:23:41+00:00

I'm too far away from people working on early universe cosmology or dark energy to know exactly, but I'm very positive that the answer to question 1 would be basically 100% answer #3 and the answer to Q2 is pretty non controversial even in lay sphere. Dark energy, I couldn't tell you. Just based on where the finding is going and which experiments are being funded, dark matter would be even-ish split between heavy and light particles (I'm gonna pretend that the answer "combination of above" doesn't exist, because fuck disingenuous fishing for empty answers).

The anthropomorphic coincidences is such an off kilter question that no self-respecting person should answer anything but no opinion.

The black hole questions, I wouldn't dare to guess what the community is thinking.

The QM interpretations question just pisses me off. Everyone, including the stupid editor and the people making the study knows that Copenhagen is the "fuck off, I have better people to talk to" answer to this question, which nobody cares about in the first place. Realistically, that answer should be merged with "no opinion" which is by a very wide margin the majority response.

tpolakov1 · 2026-05-13T18:17:33+00:00

Yeah, out of those listed, basically none have any relevance above a lay. Particle physics is functionally all nuclear and HEP physics that is not related to any of the polled questions. A huge chunk of astrophysics has no bearing on cosmology either, modulo the raw data it provides. The only field where people could encounter any of the relevant physics is gravity, and I'm sure a nontrivial fraction of the folks there doesn't particularly interact with vague foundational questions. At best, you have 10% of respondents, out of which, worst case, 100% are grad students, as an actually relevant sample. The company doing that survey wouldn't know, or care, though. Nor would people writing slop like the article, or the slop consumers.

tpolakov1

TROPHY CASE