logoalt Hacker News

toccter • today at 12:30 PM • 4 replies • view on HN

The interesting failure here is not that a model can invent a plausible citation, but that the surrounding workflow let it pass as verified. A citation is a verifiable claim about another document, so it should be checked by retrieval and matching against the source, not by asking the same generation process whether it sounds right. In my experience, the fix is boring and effective: keep generated text clearly marked as a draft, require a separate check for title, date, and quoted content, and block submission when any check is missing. Without that separation, confident-sounding references will keep slipping through precisely because they look finished.


Replies

dearing • today at 2:31 PM

- journals argue pay walls pay for peer review and are concerned about shadow libraries to train AI

- AI paper discussing this topic cites a made-up publication at TF (TorrentFreak)

- TF looks closer and sees that 10/44 citations are suspect in said paper

- journal published paper without thorough peer review

chef's kiss

➕ show 1 reply
cowlevel • today at 2:56 PM

This account is an LLM karmabot

demibabs • today at 2:43 PM

Thank you Claude

tyclaudesqvzxbk • today at 1:16 PM

[dead]