Prism

Post by doodlesdev » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 3:58 AM UTC

Springtime wrote: post #296

syntex wrote: post #191

The Post-LLM World: Fighting Digital Garbage https://archive.org/details/paper_20260127/mode/2up Mini paper: that future isn’t the AI replacing humans. its about humans drowning in cheap artifacts. New unit of measurement proposed: verification debt. Also introduces: Recursive Garbage → model collapse a little joke on Prism)

> The Post-LLM World: Fighting Digital Garbage https://archive.org/details/paper_20260127/mode/2up This appears to just be the output of LLMs itself? It credits GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 exclusively as authors, has a public domain license (appropriate for AI output) and is only several paragraphs in length.

Post by Eridrus » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 4:19 AM UTC

pickleRick243 wrote: post #221

JBorrow wrote: post #32

From my perspective as a journal editor and a reviewer these kinds of tools cause many more problems than they actually solve. They make the 'barrier to entry' for submitting vibed semi-plausible journal articles much lower, which I understand some may see as a benefit. The drawback is that scientific editors and reviewers provide those services for free, as a community benefit. One example was a submission their und…

I'm curious if you'd be in favor of other forms of academic gate keeping as well. Isn't the lower quality overall of submissions (an ongoing trend with a history far pre-dating LLMs) an issue? Isn't the real question (that you are alluding to) whether there should be limits to the democratization of science? If my tone seems acerbic, it is only because I sense cognitive dissonance between the anti-AI stance common am…

Post by i000 » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 4:30 AM UTC

desolate_muffin wrote: post #290

i000 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the real issue is the gate-keeping scientific publishing model. Journals had a place and role, and peer-review is a critical aspect of the scientific process but new times (internet, citizien science, higher levels of scientific literacy, and now AI) diminish the benefits of journals creating "barriers to entry" as you put it.

I for one hope not to live in a world where academic journals fall out of favor and are replaced by vibe-coded papers by citizen scientists with inflated egos from one too many “you’re absolutely right!” Claude responses.

Post by agnishom » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 5:04 AM UTC

pickleRick243 wrote: post #278

agnishom wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> whether there should be limits to the democratization of science? That is an interesting philosophical question, but not the question we are confronted with. A lot of LLM assisted materials have the _signals_ of novel research without having its _substance_.

LLMs are tools. In the hands of adept, conscientious researchers, they can only be a boon, assisting in the crafting of the research manuscript. In the hands of less adept, less conscientious users, they accelerate the production of slop. The poster I'm responding to seems to be noting an asymmetry- those who find the most use from these tools could be inept researchers who have no business submitting their work. Thi…

Post by plutomeetsyou » Wed, Jan 28, 2026, 5:11 AM UTC

Myrmornis wrote: post #316

Away from applied math/stats, and physics etc, not that many scientists use LaTeX. I'm not saying it's not useful, just I don't think many scientists will feel like a product that's LaTeX based is intended for them.