arXiv will ban authors for a year if they let AI do all the work

TechCrunch's Anthony Ha reports that arXiv, the preprint server most of computer science and physics runs on, will ban authors for a year when there is clear evidence they let an LLM do the work without checking it. After the ban, those authors must get future submissions accepted at a peer-reviewed venue before arXiv will take them again.

This is not a ban on using LLMs. The trigger, in arXiv's words, is "incontrovertible evidence that the authors did not check the results of LLM generation," with examples like hallucinated references or stray prompts and replies left in the text. arXiv's reasoning is blunt: if a paper shows the authors did not check the model's output, "we can't trust anything in the paper." Authors stay responsible for everything they submit, however it was produced. The process is one strike, with moderator flagging, section-chair confirmation, and an author appeal. For now it is described in Thomas Dietterich's computer science section, and how widely it applies is not yet clear. The full report is at TechCrunch.

Why it matters

If you post preprints, the rule itself is old common sense, but the penalty is new and real. Unchecked output that leaks a fake citation or a leftover prompt can cost you a year and push you into peer review. Read the draft before it goes up.