Bob Novella

And if you leave that in there, give me a break.

So regarding this, Dietrich said, the trouble is, if they're not checking for these simple things, what else are they not checking for?

And that's really the crux of it.

And it's the absolute key.

These people who are submitting these papers, if they leave such a ridiculous and obvious LLM artifact in their paper, then the archive seems to me has every right to just flat out assume it's potentially everywhere in the paper and just harder to detect.

That's when they're going to have a problem.

And they're not outright banning LLM help.

It's obviously a very valuable tool in so many scenarios.

But what the archive is doing here is they're saying that the researchers, the scientists, the people that are submitting these papers, they need to take full responsibility for their paper's content.

No matter how the content was generated, they need to take full responsibility.

And that's not that's not unreasonable.

It doesn't seem it seems to me.

District describes the content that they will be fully accountable accountable for as inappropriate language, plagiarized content, biased content, errors, mistakes, incorrect references or misleading content.

So these are the kinds of things that these people would be fully accountable for.

So if guilty, if they are found guilty of this, then there's a one-year ban from archive, followed by the requirement that any subsequent archive submissions must first be accepted by reputable peer-reviewed venue.

So if you want to come back after a year, you've got to get something that's peer-reviewed from a reputable journal in order to submit anything more to the archive.

And this is – Dietrich describes this as a one-strike rule.

It happens once.

That's it.

That's it.