arXiv caps debate: mathematician says arXiv is a database, not a non-slop certificate
peter_richtarik · x · 2026-10-02
Reacting to arXiv's submission caps for prolific AI authors, Peter Richtarik says arXiv is like a Dropbox to him—a timestamped database of all papers, not a non-slop certificate: he never trusts a paper because it's on arXiv. He supports filtering clear AI slop or errors but argues science needs a central depository of everything, and 'from this point of view, we are losing.' His interlocutor counters that arXiv is a moderated commons with finite resources and reader attention, and a 10/year cap mainly constrains one problematic style of mass paper production.
Related event: arXiv Submission Caps Spark Debate Over AI Paper Flood(3 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Physicists Are Reacting to AI Very Differently Than Mathematicians, Says Cosmologist — aran_nayebi · 2026-10-02
- 58 Years Ago Kubrick Sketched the AI Alignment Problem: HAL Was Just Given Conflicting Goals — Hesamation · 2026-10-02
- Hinton warns AI capability is outpacing safeguards as leaders face an innovation-control dilemma — Olivier__OG · 2026-10-02
- Reddit: AI is only useful if you have the domain expertise to check its work — PettyCashCommittee · 2026-10-02
- "If I Can Finish a Task in Under 5 Minutes, No Need for LLMs" — gethackteam · 2026-10-02
- No, AI Didn't Just Solve the Navier-Stokes Equations—Here's What It Did — elsleightholm · 2026-10-02