> But not everyone is convinced that such measures are the right approach. Natalie Khalil, the founder of Reviewer 3, a platform run from in San Francisco, California, that uses AI to help researchers to conduct peer review, argues that arXiv is treating the symptom, not the root cause. “If a researcher is banned from arXiv, they will still do research, just elsewhere,” she notes.
Notably, the commenter offers up no viable alternative solution
> But not everyone is convinced that such measures are the right approach. Natalie Khalil, the founder of Reviewer 3, a platform run from in San Francisco, California, that uses AI to help researchers to conduct peer review, argues that arXiv is treating the symptom, not the root cause. “If a researcher is banned from arXiv, they will still do research, just elsewhere,” she notes.
Notably, the commenter offers up no viable alternative solution
I suppose the root cause would be using/allowing AI for papers, since they hallucinate more than just references.
Sounds reasonable to me. They're also cracking down on other types of hallucinations in articles.
Discussed last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48140922
[dead]