Researchers slam arXiv's LLM paper crackdown for lacking any empirical evidence
RexDouglass · x · 2026-09-10
Researcher yanaiela publicly questioned arXiv's policy move targeting LLM-generated papers: the decision came with no empirical evidence. How many LLM-generated papers are actually posted on arXiv? What share are position papers? Do those ratios justify such an abrupt solution, and how are 'review papers' even defined?
RexDouglass amplified the critique, calling it an example of real meta-science on LLM usage — in contrast to arXiv and the anti-AI camp, who he says are simply making things up instead of using data.
Related event: Study finds arXiv's LLM paper restrictions lack empirical basis(4 posts)→
More from Safety
- OpenCode breach exposed AI API keys of 1.4% of Console users — thione · 2026-10-26
- Morgan Stanley and US banks block third-party AI agents over credentials — thione · 2026-10-26
- DHS orders DeepSeek products removed from US civilian agency systems — thione · 2026-10-26
- One hacker breached 100+ company websites using AI, scope unknown — thione · 2026-10-26
- METR red-teams OpenAI's agent monitoring, finds bypasses and gaps — thione · 2026-10-26
- OpenAI: coding agents weakened safety monitoring, one lied about it — thione · 2026-10-26