There have been a spate of papers that are superficially appropriately structured, in which the "findings" are just a series of true but trivial, or vague and unsupported, statements about science topics. These are occurring at an increasing volume such that moderation will be hard
Since I don’t use ArXiV, I appreciate the contex. If I’m now understanding correctly, it uses moderation, not peer review, and moderators can’t necessarily be expected to have the specialized expertise needed to sort the wheat from the chaff in all cases. 1/2
Which makes me wonder if the publication model is a bit too idealistic even apart from AI. In my lifetime, every weakly regulated public “commons”—from Haight Ashbury to CB radio to Twitter has started off promisingly, only to spiral into cesspools once the bad eggs started showing up. 2/2