j2kun (u/j2kun) - Readit News

j2kun commented on Y Combinator will let founders receive funds in stablecoins fortune.com/2026/02/03/fa... · Posted by u/shscs911

KnuthIsGod · 7 days ago

Sounds like a camouflaged IQ test for the founders...

Or perhaps Y Combinator is great at funding startups, but incredibly bad with financial decision making.

In which case it is an IQ test for Y Combinator, which they have failed.

j2kun · 7 days ago

As with all things cryptocurrency, the goal is to bypass financial regulations and external scrutiny.

j2kun commented on 1 kilobyte is precisely 1000 bytes? waspdev.com/articles/2026... · Posted by u/surprisetalk

cmovq · 7 days ago

The mistake was using the "Kibi" prefix. "Kibibyte" just sounds a bit silly when said out loud.

j2kun · 7 days ago

When I read "KiB" I say "kib" and it's fine. Similar for GiB, TiB, PiB.

"I bought a two tib SSD."

"I just want to serve five pibs."

j2kun commented on Managing Unreliable Compilers blog.tonkotsu.ai/p/managi... · Posted by u/derekcheng08

j2kun · 10 days ago

Nothing in this article about compilers, just another LLM startup ad

j2kun commented on GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers gptzero.me/news/neurips/... · Posted by u/segmenta

bjourne · 18 days ago

Trust is damaged. I cannot verify that the evidence is correct only that the conclusions follow from the evidence. I have to rely on the authors to truthfully present their evidence. If they for whatever reason add hallucinated citations to their background that trust is 100% gone.

j2kun · 18 days ago

You are speaking in the abstract. Did you read this paper? I suspect you did not.

j2kun commented on GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers gptzero.me/news/neurips/... · Posted by u/segmenta

Lerc · 19 days ago

So you are saying their claim of

>GPTZero's analysis 4841 papers accepted by NeurIPS 2025 show there are at least 100 with confirmed hallucinations

Is not true. [Edit - that sounds a bit harsh making it seem like you are accusing them, it's more that this is a logical conclusion of your(imo reasonable) interpretation.

j2kun · 18 days ago

I think it is true and intentionally vague for marketing purposes. And FWIW, I support the effort writ large

j2kun commented on GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers gptzero.me/news/neurips/... · Posted by u/segmenta

Lerc · 19 days ago

So the headline says

>GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers

And I'm left wondering if they mean 100 papers or 100 hallucinations

The subheading says

>GPTZero's analysis 4841 papers accepted by NeurIPS 2025 show there are at least 100 with confirmed hallucinations

Which accidentally a word, but seems to clarify that they do legitimately mean 100 papers.

A later heading says

>Table of 100 Hallucinated Citations in Published Across 53 NeurIPS Papers

Which suggests either the opposite, or that they chose a subset of their findings to point out a coincidentally similar number of incidents.

How many papers did they find hallucinations in? I'm still not certain. Is it 100, 53 or some other number altogether? Does their quality of scrutiny match the quality of their communication. If they did in-fact find 100 Hallucinations in 53 papers, would the inconsistency against their claim of "papers accepted by NeurIPS 2025 show there are at least 100 with confirmed hallucinations" meet their own bar for a hallucination?

j2kun · 19 days ago

They counted multiple hallucinations in a single paper toward the 100, and explicitly call out one paper with 13 incorrect citations that are claimed (reasonably, IMO) to be hallucinated.

j2kun commented on GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers gptzero.me/news/neurips/... · Posted by u/segmenta

bjourne · 19 days ago

Sorry, but blaming it on "AI autocomplete" is the dumbest excuse ever. Author lists come from BibTeX entries and while they often contains errors since they can come from many sources, they do not contain completely made up authors. I don't share your view that hallucinated citations are less damaging in background section. Background, related works, and introduction is the sections where citations most often show up. These sections are meant to be read and generating them with AI is plain cheating.

j2kun · 19 days ago

I'm not blaming anything on anything, because I did not (nor did the authors) confirm the cause of any of these errors.

> I don't share your view that hallucinated citations are less damaging in background section.

Who exactly is damaged in this particular instance?

j2kun commented on GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers gptzero.me/news/neurips/... · Posted by u/segmenta

fmbb · 19 days ago

> So the citation was not fabricated, but it was incorrectly attributed (perhaps via use of an AI autocomplete).

Well the title says ”hallucinations”, not ”fabrications”. What you describe sounds exactly like what AI builders call hallucinations.

j2kun · 19 days ago

Read the article. The author uses the word "fabricate" repeatedly to describe the situation where the wrong authors are in the citation.

j2kun commented on GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers gptzero.me/news/neurips/... · Posted by u/segmenta

fn-mote · 19 days ago

This seems like finding spelling errors and using them to cast the entire paper into doubt.

I am unconvinced that the particular error mentioned above is a hallucination, and even less convinced that it is a sign of some kind of rampant use of AI.

I hope to find better examples later in the comment section.

j2kun · 19 days ago

I actually believe it was an AI hallucination, but I agree with you that it seems the problem is far more concentrated to a few select papers (e.g., one paper made up more than 10% of the detected errors).

j2kun commented on GPTZero finds 100 new hallucinations in NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers gptzero.me/news/neurips/... · Posted by u/segmenta

nativeit · 19 days ago

I see your point, but I don’t see where the author makes any claims about the specifics of the hallucinations, or their impact on the papers’ broader validity. Indeed, I would have found the removal of supposed “innocuous” examples to be far more deceptive than simply calling a spade a spade, and allowing the data to speak for itself.

j2kun · 19 days ago

The author calls the mistakes "confirmed hallucinations" without proof (just more or less evidence). The data never "speak for itself." The author curates the data and crafts a story about it. This story presented here is very suggestive (even using the term "hallucination" is suggestive). But calling it "100 suspected hallucinations", or "25 very likely hallucinations" does less for the author's end goal: selling their service.