Just thought I'd highlight this issue to the ML community, since I recently had this problem arise and it might be useful for some. I had a coauthor who I knew was somewhat untrustworthy when it came to LLM use. This coauthor added some last-minute new references to the paper. The deadline was near, and I had a ton of other stuff to take care of. I asked them to ensure the references were correct. This coauthor confirmed that all references were correct. I trusted them. I submitted the paper. Turns out, I made a critical mistake in trusting them. All of these newly added references had hallucinations in them. The reviewer pointed out the hallucinated references and we withdrew the paper. Besides this reviewer, we had all accept scores: the scientific content of our paper was strong. Of course, this damages my reputation and the reputations of the rest of the coauthors. The takeaway is: check *all* references added to the paper, unless you are absolutely certain you can trust someone to not use LLMs. Hopefully this helps someone avoid this issue, because I worked tirelessly on this paper, in a very high pressure lab environment, and this whole situation has caused me a lot of grief. submitted by /u/treeman0469 [link] [Kommentare]

any prop firm traders here? i got a little too close to my drawdown limit, I've recovered a bit since then but I still find myself overthinking setups and focusing more on the drawdown than actually trading. any advice? submitted by /u/Emotional-Eye1878 [link] [Kommentare]

> Except from the article. ​ FTX co-founder and former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried lost a bid to overturn his 25-year prison sentence and fraud conviction Friday, with a panel of federal appeals judges unanimously upholding the verdict. ​ The Manhattan-based judges, of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, picked apart Bankman-Fried’s arguments for overturning the judgment, finding each of them uncompelling. ​ “Bankman-Fried makes these arguments in the face of a trial at which the government’s evidence against him was, conservatively stated, robust,” the decision reads. submitted by /u/zesushv [link] [Kommentare]