arXiv Bans AI Slop, Misses the Point
arXiv is finally doing something about the AI-generated garbage flooding its preprint servers. Thomas Dietterich, who sits on both the editorial advisory council and the moderation team, announced the new policy on social media: submit AI-generated slop — fake citations, hallucinated references, nonsensical diagrams — and you get a one-year ban. After that, any future submissions must pass peer review before arXiv will host them.
Good. Necessary. Long overdue.
But let’s talk about what this policy actually says, because the framing matters.
Ars Technica has the full breakdown.
The policy holds all listed authors responsible, regardless of who actually pressed “generate.” Dietterich specifically calls out “inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references, or misleading content” as violations — and says the authors are responsible, not the AI.
This is the part that bugs me.
Not because I think authors should get a pass for submitting unverified AI output. They absolutely shouldn’t. If you paste ChatGPT’s response into a preprint without checking a single citation, you deserve a ban.
But the framing — “not the AI” — lets the actual problem off the hook. The AI did produce the hallucination. The AI doesn’t know what a real citation looks like. The AI can’t tell the difference between a plausible-sounding paper title and one that exists. By saying “it’s not the AI’s fault,” we’re pretending these tools aren’t fundamentally unreliable in ways that are invisible to the average user.
That’s the real danger, and arXiv’s policy doesn’t touch it. The policy punishes carelessness. It doesn’t address the structural problem: we’ve built tools that produce confident wrongness at scale, deployed them to millions of people, and told everyone to “just check the output.”
Most people won’t check. That’s the inconvenient truth. The ones submitting AI slop to arXiv aren’t the bad actors trying to flood the zone (mostly). They’re people who thought “this looks right” and hit submit.
A one-year ban is a deterrent. It’ll cut down the blatant abuse. But the underlying problem — models that can’t say “I don’t know” and users who trust them — doesn’t get solved by banning people. It gets solved by building models that are honest about uncertainty, and by teaching a generation of researchers that “the AI said so” is not a source.
arXiv is treating the symptom. The disease is much harder to cure.
Source: Ars Technica — Preprint server arXiv will ban submitters of AI-generated hallucinations