AI intensifies fight against ‘paper mills’ that churn out fake research
Instead of fighting against &quot;paper mills&quot;, let’s fight against journals. There are strong arguments against the need for peer-review for example [1]. Science does not get worse when there are more bad papers, science gets better when there are more good papers. Most papers in AI aren’t even reviewed by peers or editor and guess what: we have lots of progress happening. I’m not saying that is because the lack of review, I’m saying that reviews are not necessary for progress. Furthermore, was the iPhone good because it was reviewed by a board of &quot;independent&quot; reviewers? No it wasn’t. Let’s just ignore Nature. Good papers are good because they have good arguments and if they are not good, then time will tell. Papers are not good simply because Nature (TM) put a stamp on it.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.experimental-history.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;science-is-a-strong-link-problem" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.experimental-history.com&#x2F;p&#x2F;science-is-a-strong-l...</a>