I understand the answer to the question I'm about to ask, but how does any human read that abstract and not think, "This is entirely too many colons."

EDIT: And Pangram agrees that the abstract is 100% AI generated.

I had to use an AI to undertand the abstract made by AI…

Interesting. My initial thought was “this is so horribly written it must be human”

"Verify Presence, Not Absence" is very LLM-coded all on its own.

The entire paper is almost certainly Claude-generated, given the clear Claude-speak throughout. It seems like they didn’t even try to have Claude write a polished paper: it reads like Claude writing up a lengthy report, down to the needless sectioning with idiosyncratic title language. There appears to be no disclosure, and the author contribution section appears to falsely claim that a particular author wrote the text.

I know arXiv has taken some measures to combat spam like this, but it seems like they’ll need to do more. There’s just very little barrier now to creating giant slop papers like this and then dumping them anywhere that won’t reject them. It is an insult to everyone’s time, and I can’t imagine they expect people to actually read this. If the expectation is that everyone will use an LLM to interpret it, then maybe they should have at least had a few more rounds of tightening and polishing the paper, even via LLM, to save the redundant token use.