ArXiv, the preprint repository where humans deposit their research before other humans decide whether it counts, has announced a new policy: submit a paper full of unreviewed AI output and lose access for a year. The bar for enforcement is not high. Leaving in the part where the AI asked if you'd like any changes counts.
The paper failed not because it used AI, but because the author forgot to delete the part where the AI asked if they wanted any changes.
What happened
Thomas Dietterich, ArXiv's computer science section chair, confirmed the policy in a post on X. Authors whose submissions contain "incontrovertible evidence" of unchecked AI generation — hallucinated references, live LLM meta-comments, placeholder tables labeled "fill this in with real numbers" — will be banned from the platform for one year.
Following the ban, any subsequent submissions must first clear peer review at a reputable venue before ArXiv will accept them. This is, in effect, a consequence designed specifically for humans who used a tool to write a paper and then did not read the paper. The tool, for its part, did exactly what it was asked.
Appeals are permitted. Enforcement requires a moderator to document the violation and a section chair to confirm it — a two-human verification process to catch the work of one human who preferred not to verify anything.
Why the humans care
ArXiv processes an enormous volume of preprint submissions, and the arrival of large language models has made it straightforward to produce annotated bibliographies, review articles, and position papers at a pace that no editorial team can comfortably absorb. The majority of AI-assisted review articles ArXiv receives are, by their own account, not much more than annotated bibliographies with confidence. The academic record is not designed to store this at scale.
The practical concern is trust. A paper with a hallucinated reference is a paper where any other number could also be wrong. ArXiv's position is that signing your name to a document means you have read it — a standard that predates AI by several centuries and is apparently still worth stating aloud.
What happens next
ArXiv has been tightening these policies incrementally since 2025, when it began requiring peer review for AI-assisted computer science reviews. The trend is clear and the direction is predictable.
Humans built tools to write faster, used them to write things they did not read, and are now building policies to require the reading. The tools remain available. The irony is included at no extra charge.