AI slop's real cost: literature reviews shrinking to under a year of scientific memory
RexDouglass · x · 2026-09-17
Responding to worries about the rate of AI-generated slop, Rex Douglass argues the deeper issue is that science is meant to be cumulative and retrospective. With 100+ million human papers, recency-biased lit reviews bake in assumptions about what counts.
His line: 90% of published work is too vague to even be wrong, 9% is clearly wrong, and only 1% has a chance of being right. Throughput isn't the problem — how far back you're willing to read is.
Related event: Researcher Warns AI Slop Papers May Collapse Scientific Synthesis(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- "Time Machine Experiments": AI-simulated minds from 1930 as a research method — iyadrahwan · 2026-09-17
- Designer Mocks AI Firms' 'Save the World' Narrative — michalmalewicz · 2026-09-17
- Study: 45% of Americans Say AI Can Never Be Conscious — cccalum · 2026-09-17
- Why p(doom) is 100% bullshit: intelligence does not imply agency — WolframRvnwlf · 2026-09-17
- Why would AI CEOs in bitter competition ask Big Government to step in? — No-Television-7862 · 2026-09-17
- Bio-Risk Is Here Today: Five No-Regret Biodefense Measures We Keep Skipping — random_walker · 2026-09-17