Hacker News Reader

Comment by DarkUranium | Hacker News Reader

I feel like this should be treated as, and have consequences similar to, plagiarism.

Alas, it's probably just wishful thinking on my part.

I thought that it was. I thought journals were starting to implement full bans upwards of a year+ for those who don't honestly disclose AI usage in their work? If I'm not mistaken, arXiv is doing this as well? granted, disclosure is different from overuse, but it seems like a small jump to just go ahead and just ban not checking ones work! ...disclosed or not disclosed. my own personal view on it, is if you can't be bothered to spot hallucinations and other such errors, its not ai that is the issue, it is incompetence and laziness

So wrist slap?

I don't know if you know what you're talking about, but in my area, this could easily result in losing your job.

You probably don't want to throw someone in jail for one plagiarized paper, so between jail time and losing your job, I don't know what else you have.

Would be great if you'd lose job for plagiarism! Here's example [0] from Cambridge where they actually defend person that plagiarized A LOT.

[0] https://retractionwatch.com/2026/07/27/cambridge-jason-arday...

What is your area? I publish in AI (mainly IJCAI/AAAI, MLJ and some smaller conferences) and had one of my rejected papers copy/pasted into a new submission to a different conference without my consent. When I asked for the copy to be retracted a new paper was written, also based on my paper, to replace the copy of my paper without telling the conference. When I complained to the conference the new paper was sent to the reviewers of the first copy (which had been accepted before the new paper was written) with a note "explaining" a mistake had been made and then the new paper was also accepted to the conference. I reported all this to the integrity team at the host institution and there was an informal investigation which found that there had been "some level plagiarism" (sic) but it was only poor academic practice, not misconduct and there would be no disciplinary consequences. Right now we're at the point where I'm waiting for Springer, who publish the conference proceedings, to also sweep it all under the rug and let me know that publishing a copy of a copy of my paper meets their high scholarly standards.

Plagiarism brings a slap on the wrist unless the case is very high profile, like the example posted by azan_20 in the sibling where the plagiarising academic had many accolades and a big reputation. If the target or source of plagiarism is not famous it's like stealing bikes.

And of course if you're a senior academic being accused of misconduct by a less senior academic you can LOL about it because it's all a big joke and the less senior academic is the one who'll get a hit to their reputation for making a fuss and rocking the boat.

> Plagiarism brings a slap on the wrist unless the case is very high profile, like the example posted by azan_20 in the sibling where the plagiarising academic had many accolades and a big reputation. If the target or source of plagiarism is not famous it's like stealing bikes.

I'd like to clarify - the very high profile case did not even get wrist slap and Cambridge is actually defending him.

That's right. At least there's reporting in the lay press which can cause a scandal and that may finally convince Cambridge to do something, although I'm not holding my breath.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com