Knowingly using a piece of software that *BY DESIGN* fabricates text is not "hallucination" - it is fraud.
-
Knowingly using a piece of software that *BY DESIGN* fabricates text is not "hallucination" - it is fraud. I'd be prosecuted if I sat down and invented references for submissions in a court case. I'd lose my job as an academic if I did the same for a paper. Someone explain why automating fraud has somehow made it completely fine and consequence-free?
The very tiny remaining few of us who still give a crap about "not lying" need to fight to bring back real consequences for fraud, fabrication
-
Knowingly using a piece of software that *BY DESIGN* fabricates text is not "hallucination" - it is fraud. I'd be prosecuted if I sat down and invented references for submissions in a court case. I'd lose my job as an academic if I did the same for a paper. Someone explain why automating fraud has somehow made it completely fine and consequence-free?
The very tiny remaining few of us who still give a crap about "not lying" need to fight to bring back real consequences for fraud, fabrication
@ketan , its scientific literature. Check references before relying on them.
-
Knowingly using a piece of software that *BY DESIGN* fabricates text is not "hallucination" - it is fraud. I'd be prosecuted if I sat down and invented references for submissions in a court case. I'd lose my job as an academic if I did the same for a paper. Someone explain why automating fraud has somehow made it completely fine and consequence-free?
The very tiny remaining few of us who still give a crap about "not lying" need to fight to bring back real consequences for fraud, fabrication
@ketan If you think about it, "making fraud consequence-free" is really the only viable commercial use for LLMs.
-
Knowingly using a piece of software that *BY DESIGN* fabricates text is not "hallucination" - it is fraud. I'd be prosecuted if I sat down and invented references for submissions in a court case. I'd lose my job as an academic if I did the same for a paper. Someone explain why automating fraud has somehow made it completely fine and consequence-free?
The very tiny remaining few of us who still give a crap about "not lying" need to fight to bring back real consequences for fraud, fabrication
@ketan Well, quite a few people have lost their jobs publishing fabricated texts. And rightly so.
-
Knowingly using a piece of software that *BY DESIGN* fabricates text is not "hallucination" - it is fraud. I'd be prosecuted if I sat down and invented references for submissions in a court case. I'd lose my job as an academic if I did the same for a paper. Someone explain why automating fraud has somehow made it completely fine and consequence-free?
The very tiny remaining few of us who still give a crap about "not lying" need to fight to bring back real consequences for fraud, fabrication
@ketan Maybe the companies selling these nonsense generators could be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit fraud.
-
Knowingly using a piece of software that *BY DESIGN* fabricates text is not "hallucination" - it is fraud. I'd be prosecuted if I sat down and invented references for submissions in a court case. I'd lose my job as an academic if I did the same for a paper. Someone explain why automating fraud has somehow made it completely fine and consequence-free?
The very tiny remaining few of us who still give a crap about "not lying" need to fight to bring back real consequences for fraud, fabrication
Three images:
#1
FINANCIAL TIMES
Elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell admits to Al 'hallucinations'
Firm whose partners bill more than $2,000 per hour apologizes to judge for software-driven errors in bankruptcy case
#2
Sujeet Indap and Kaye Wiggins in New York
Published YESTERDAY
125
Sullivan & Cromwell told a US federal bankruptcy court that a major filing it made in a high-profile case contained multiple "hallucinations" made by AI software.
Andrew Dietderich, the head of S&C's restructuring practice, apologized in a letter to New York federal judge Martin Glenn on Saturday for mistakes that included misquoting the US bankruptcy code and citing cases incorrectly in a court filing made on April 9.
"We deeply regret that this has occurred," he said in the letter.
Dietderich said the firm's policies on the use of Al had not been followed when the document was prepared, and it was considering whether it needed to make "further enhancements" to its internal training and review processes.
The letter did not say which lawyers prepared the documents or whether they were still at the firm. S&C declined to comment.
#3
nature
NEWS FEATURE 01 April 2026
Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done?
Tens of thousands of publications from 2025 might include invalid references generated by Al, a Nature analysis suggests.
By Miryam Naddaf & Elizabeth Quill -
Knowingly using a piece of software that *BY DESIGN* fabricates text is not "hallucination" - it is fraud. I'd be prosecuted if I sat down and invented references for submissions in a court case. I'd lose my job as an academic if I did the same for a paper. Someone explain why automating fraud has somehow made it completely fine and consequence-free?
The very tiny remaining few of us who still give a crap about "not lying" need to fight to bring back real consequences for fraud, fabrication
@ketan@climatejustice.social @tk@f.kawa-kun.com
The use of tool is irrelevant. These fuckers should be disbarred en masse.
-
Knowingly using a piece of software that *BY DESIGN* fabricates text is not "hallucination" - it is fraud. I'd be prosecuted if I sat down and invented references for submissions in a court case. I'd lose my job as an academic if I did the same for a paper. Someone explain why automating fraud has somehow made it completely fine and consequence-free?
The very tiny remaining few of us who still give a crap about "not lying" need to fight to bring back real consequences for fraud, fabrication
@ketan isn't lying something that can get you disbarred?
-
@ketan , its scientific literature. Check references before relying on them.
@Anne_Canada I'm sorry, but this is a profoundly asinine thing to say, and I shouldn't have to explain to you why, you should have never written it in the first place.
-
Knowingly using a piece of software that *BY DESIGN* fabricates text is not "hallucination" - it is fraud. I'd be prosecuted if I sat down and invented references for submissions in a court case. I'd lose my job as an academic if I did the same for a paper. Someone explain why automating fraud has somehow made it completely fine and consequence-free?
The very tiny remaining few of us who still give a crap about "not lying" need to fight to bring back real consequences for fraud, fabrication
In Canada, lawyers now need to certify their facta contain only verified citations because this is such a problem. Too many lawyers are far too lazy.
-
@Anne_Canada I'm sorry, but this is a profoundly asinine thing to say, and I shouldn't have to explain to you why, you should have never written it in the first place.
-
@Anne_Canada If you think I was being arrogant, you clearly don't get it.
-
Knowingly using a piece of software that *BY DESIGN* fabricates text is not "hallucination" - it is fraud. I'd be prosecuted if I sat down and invented references for submissions in a court case. I'd lose my job as an academic if I did the same for a paper. Someone explain why automating fraud has somehow made it completely fine and consequence-free?
The very tiny remaining few of us who still give a crap about "not lying" need to fight to bring back real consequences for fraud, fabrication
@ketan there needs to be consequences for those who disregard the veracity of their statements in conduct of work, especially sensitive work with real heavy consequences for people and the natural environment
-
P pelle@veganism.social shared this topic
