Should arXiv reject an AI-discovered cancer breakthrough that passes clinical trials?
IanArawjo · x · 2026-09-14
Ian Arawjo sparked a debate on X about AI-assisted research: if someone solved a type of cancer through clever AI use—validated repeatedly in empirical tests and clinical trials, even if not fully understood—should arXiv reject the paper? He argues that would be absurd, and pushes back on the idea that "incomplete understanding" means no human effort: even cutting-edge math relies on heavy human oversight and hunches.
More from AGI Musings
- Rumor swirls that LLMs may have hit recursive self-improvement, with Google suspected — weskambale · 2026-09-14
- François Fleuret: 'AI is cargo cult that works' — francoisfleuret · 2026-09-14
- UK AI rules compared to 1860s Red Flag Act that kneecapped Britain's car industry — alexvoica · 2026-09-14
- Altman says OpenAI backs deliberately slowing AI progress; critics see a moat — mark_k · 2026-09-14
- François Fleuret: LLMs lack internal conceptualization, unlike human cognition — francoisfleuret · 2026-09-14
- Dave Patterson mocks AI doomers: 'It's not doom that's coming - it's Judgment' — davidpattersonx · 2026-09-14