Thomas G. Dietterich (@tdietterich): "Attention @arxiv authors: Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated. 1/" | XCancel
Thomas G. Dietterich@tdietterich
May 14
Attention @arxiv authors: Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated. 1/
May 14, 2026 · 7:03 PM UTC
86
692
4,163
623,215
Thomas G. Dietterich@tdietterich
May 14
If generative AI tools generate inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content, and that output is included in scientific works, it is the responsibility of the author(s). 2/
13
53
1,003
63,097
Thomas G. Dietterich@tdietterich
May 14
We have recently clarified our penalties for this. If a submission contains incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation, this means we can't trust anything in the paper. 3/
53
990
96,774
Thomas G. Dietterich@tdietterich
May 14
The penalty is a 1-year ban from arXiv followed by the requirement that subsequent arXiv submissions must first be accepted at a reputable peer-reviewed venue. 4/
27
127
1,645
207,132
Thomas G. Dietterich@tdietterich
May 14
Examples of incontrovertible evidence: hallucinated references, meta-comments from the LLM ("here is a 200 word summary; would you like me to make any changes?"; "the data in this table is illustrative, fill it in with the real numbers from your experiments") end/
24
51
1,164
67,403
Dr. Tuğrulcan Elmas@DrTugrulcan
3h
Replying to @tdietterich @arxiv
I appreciate better enforcement then. A few months ago I sent a complaint about an AI paper with hallucinated references farming citations by squatting on a popular keyword and this is the brilliant response I got
1,304
Thomas G. Dietterich@tdietterich
3h
Did you file a Code of Conduct complaint with @arxiv?
903
Justin Angel
@JustinAngel
22h
Replying to @tdietterich @arxiv
My guess is that this policy will be applied selectively depending on institutional privilege and personal notoriety. It'll end up as a tool of silencing unconnected individuals vs. promoting better scientific discourse.
I aspire to be wrong.
12
140
21,536
Thomas G. Dietterich@tdietterich
22h
I agree that there could be biases in our pipeline. We apply a standard LLM detection algorithm to identify papers that need scrutiny. Moderators may also be biased. We would love to collaborate with researchers to study the bias and effectiveness of our operations!
10
210
18,956
more replies
Alessandro Melchiorri@alemelk
14m
Replying to @tdietterich @arxiv
16
Daniel Tan
@danieltanfh95
2h
Replying to @tdietterich @arxiv
This has to be a joke considering that arxiv uses AI tools to classify papers (in some cases wrongly as well but apparently nothing was done because…?) blog.arxiv.org/2020/05/20/ne…
400
MadMoxxie@yeahnah279
2h
Replying to @tdietterich @arxiv
This appears targeted. The need for assurance in the integrity of research data and references is crucial, but the quarantine of modern language tools is not. Seens like the problem is people of previous Gens dont like modern tools they didn't get to use . Change=Bad 🙄 🤦🏽♀️
258
Doctor Magdaki@Doctor6969420
1h
Replying to @tdietterich @arxiv
Glad to hear this. The quality of papers on arxiv has been steadily declining, reducing its value.
146
Ein Mensch@EinMensch2000
1h
Replying to @tdietterich @arxiv
Arxiv regularly rejected preprints of physics papers published in reputable physics journals long before AI existed.
Arxiv has long lost its reputation of being objective.
Arxiv will end like Wikipedia: it will only publish what fits the narrative.
168
Pierre Colmez@ColmezPierre
6h
Replying to @tdietterich @arxiv
That will be a lot of fun in domains where papers have an infinite numbers of co-authors...
330
Felipe Herrera@faherreraur
9h
Replying to @tdietterich @arxiv
This is positive for @arxiv, but some type of coauthorship confirmation step would need to be implemented to prevent misuse.
892
Bruce Lambert
@bruce_lambert
May 14
Replying to @tdietterich @arxiv
I think this is a perfectly reasonable and defensible strategy. I commend you and your colleagues.
155
14,641
Lucas Beyer (bl16)
@giffmana
May 14
Replying to @tdietterich @arxiv
Very good, please strongly enforce it.
219
13,773
Alex Kontorovich
@AlexKontorovich
22h
Replying to @tdietterich @LaboratoryMinds @arxiv
How do you tell whether authors agreed to be listed? If person X writes an AI generated slop paper, puts my name on it without my knowledge, and uploads it to the arxiv, am I banned too? Conversely, if person X and I write slop AI and he submits it to the arxiv and gets banned, can I...