Thread

1. lp4v4n · 1790945181 · focus · HN ↗

   I once read the criticism that science is already moving too fast and that wrong results get published and accepted as true because nobody reaps any laurels for verifying or reproducing results, even if that's an indispensable part of the scientific method.

   Now in the age of AI this problem will be heavily accentuated. Who's going to review the quality and validity of dozens and dozens of papers being generated by a researcher who used to publish sporadically?

   It's not hard to see science going through a "slop crisis" in the next few years, in the same way that now projects are getting inundated with PRs.

   1. Gigioingiro · 1790945800 · focus · HN ↗

      I agree, will be interesting to see the evolution. I know notable sources from the US academia that points to the problem since way before the AI, even if the they are from human science and economics, don't know much about the STEM status. Accordingly, the first slop crisis got a big hit with the initial woke wave in the mid 2000', then another hit during COVID, in which thousands of pointless papers about the effect where produced and an immense amount of research effort was towards it, and now AI. Science will keep progressing, even at a faster piece, the real problem will be to justify the work and output of thousand of people and researcher that currently need a salary. It may be that the academia will adjust to split between professionals focused on the pure teaching skill, while the research and publication aspect of academia will go to have much higher barriers and restricted to less people. Relevant publication will not become a standard requirement for a successful academic career but also teaching skills.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.