I flagged two research papers for fake authors and both were accepted as orals

At this point, in the field of AI research:

- papers are written by AI (as pointed out in this article, and as obvious to anyone who spends a while actually reading recent AI research)

- papers are reviewed by AI (NeurIPS is doing an AI assisted review experiment - https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2026/ai-reviewing-experiment - and I feel the trend is moving towards AI reviewers whether we like it or not)

- papers are read, summarized and digested by AI, because there are just so many papers at leading AI conferences that nobody has time to eyeball them all

We are very rapidly automating humans out of the academic publication loop here.

See Chavda's Paradox. 1. https://zencapital.substack.com/p/chavdas-paradox

https://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions

They should consider swapping this for a log plot.

I can imagine in 2027 academia looking like Moltbook.

This is a side effect of academia never taking open accessibility to papers and journals seriously.

If all these papers were not gatekept by journals, it would be trivially easy to validate at least the existence of cited papers and quotes.

I feel like this should be treated as, and have consequences similar to, plagiarism.

Alas, it's probably just wishful thinking on my part.

> This all is very annoying from inside the review queue. Peer review is unpaid work that we do

The genie is out of the bottle. We need to figure out a way to contain it. I think a solution is to use LLMs for peer reviews also; fight fire with fire?

> Both papers were accepted for oral presentations with the condition that they simply fix the hallucinated references.

I do wonder what truthfully could be on ai verification, if even one paper with such an error is accepted it sets the precedent you hopefully get lucky to not get caught (then again verifying for basic tells isn't the same verifying is this genuinely a worthwhile publication, but that's a separate matter)

Using Pangram to detect AI slop is a very bad idea. I tried it on my own writing which I knew to be written by me and it marked it as AI generated.

"A lot of the content of this blog was initially drafted by an agent of some sort"

What? I mean who does this. My voice is my voice and it's literally never occurred to me to have an LLM do a first draft. I thought that was college kid stuff.

[flagged]

[dead]

For anyone that wants to evade the kind of people who want to figure out if an AI wrote your review or not, we wrote a whole paper (ICLR 2026!) on how to do that!

https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.15061

I consider all types of "I liked this output, but don't the moment I learned it was AI generated" to be externalizations of "carbon chauvinism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_chauvinism) and basically bigotry.

And BTW, the term "meritocracy" was coined in a book that was extremely critical of the idea and which argued that a real meritocracy is actually dystopian. We consider our work "harming meritocracy" to be a good outcome: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy)

This is why Eversaid.co is going to be even more useful as ai generated content explodes.