> Bibtex are often also incorrectly generated
...and including the erroneous entry is squarely the author's fault.
Papers should be carefully crafted, not churned out.
I guess that makes me sweetly naive
back
5 comments
That's not happening for a similar reason people do not bug-check every single line of every single third-party library in their code. It's a chore that costs valuable time that you can instead spend on getting the actual stuff done. What's really important is that the scientific contribution is 100% correct and solid. For the references, the "good enough" paradigm applies. They mustn't be complete bogus, like the referenced work not existing at all which would indicate that the authors didnt even look at the reference. But minor issues like typos or rare issues with wrong authors can happen.
To be honest, validating bibliographies does not cost valuable time. Every research group will have their own bibtex file to which every paper the group ever cited is added.
Typically when you add it you get the info from another paper or copy the bibtex entry from Google scholar, but it's really at most 10 minutes work, more likely 2-5. Every paper might have 5-10 new entries in the bibliography, so that's 1 hour or less of work?
The complaint here is about this being an insufficient amount of effort because the bibtex entry from Google Scholar is wrong sometimes.
I don't think the original comment was saying this isn't a problem but that flagging it as a hallucination from an LLM is a much more serious allegation. In this case, it also seems like it was done to market a paid product which makes the collateral damage less tolerable in my opinion.
> Papers should be carefully crafted, not churned out.
I think you can say the same thing for code and yet, even with code review, bugs slip by. People aren't perfect and problems happen. Trying to prevent 100% of problems is usually a bad cost/benefit trade-off.
What's the benefit to society of making sure that academics waste even more of their valuable hours verifying that Google Scholar did not include extraneous authors in some citation which is barely even relevant to their work? With search engines being as good as they are, it's not like we can't easily find that paper anyway.
The entire idea of super-detailed citations is itself quite outdated in my view. Sure, citing the work you rely on is important, but that could be done just as well via hyperlinks. It's not like anybody (exclusively) relies on printed versions any more.
You want the content of the paper to be carefully crafted. Bibtex entries are the sort of thing you want people to copy and paste from a trusted source, as they can be difficult to do consistently correctly.
Pointing out these errors isn't wrong. But making the leap to "therefore: AI hallucinations!" without substantiating those accusations is.