Researchers blast top AI labs: papers judged by authors, not reproducibility
IanArawjo · x · 2026-09-14
A widely shared critique argues that people at the top of AI research would rather judge papers by their authors than actually verify results or check reproducibility — "who cares if the results aren't verifiable if it's from a big lab." The post calls the situation appalling, highlighting concerns over the lack of independent verification for big-lab research.
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