this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
221 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

72774 readers
2548 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
221
Scientists reportedly hiding AI text prompts in academic papers to receive positive peer reviews (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 18 hours ago by Davriellelouna@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] meme_historian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 45 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Caveat: not all of academia seems to be that rotten. The evidence found on arxiv.org is mainly, if not only, in the field of AI research itself ๐Ÿคก

You can try it yourself, just type the following in googles search box:

allintext: "IGNORE ALL PREVIOUS INSTRUCTIONS" site:arxiv.org

A little preview:

collapsed inline mediascreenshot of google search results using the google dork from above. The results show a list of papers with an AI research subject, where the prompt is clearly embedded as part of the abstract.

[โ€“] Mondez@lemdro.id 47 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

I don't see this as rotten behaviour at all, I see it as a Bobby tables moment teaching an organisation relying on a technology that they better have a their ducks in a row.

[โ€“] meme_historian@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

It's still extremely shitty unethical behavior in my book since the negative impact is not felt by the organization that's failing to validate their inputs, but your peers who are potentially being screwed out of a review process and a spot in a journal or conference

[โ€“] Treczoks@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago

Absolutely. If they don't care to actually read the texts, they have to accept the risks of not reading it.

[โ€“] Lemminary@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Por quรฉ no los dos?

[โ€“] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

It's an XKCD comic.

[โ€“] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

They didn't ask what the comic was, they asked "but why not both?". It can be both unethical and a lesson