"Omnibus"

I think this piece was a good summary of the state of affairs.

If I would have written it, I would have perhaps mentioned that similar problems exist also in other domains, including science, arts, and media. Maybe the solutions might be similar too? I am particularly pointing toward the following quote that wasn't yet discussed here:

"New reporters could be required to have established community members vouch for them, creating a web-of-trust model. This mirrors how the world worked before bug bounty platforms commodified security research. The only downside is, it risks creating an insider club."

"Today, AI saves time and sometimes outperforms humans at tasks—reading X-rays and summarizing complex documents, for example."

Nitpicking but a lot of research, some of which is referenced here at HN, showing that they're actually very bad at summarizing scientific papers.

Also Register picked it:

https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/07/measuring_ai_models_h...

> I think that copyright should be abolished entirely, especially for scientific articles

You know, it is really the CC-BY-style most science people care about. Same goes with MIT/BSD open source licenses, while with GPL I suppose it is one the side of CC-BY-SA.

There was also this one recently:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45552099

Now with these AI browsers, maybe it'll become like: "I'll go out for a few hours, browse the web for the past week's football matches and make me an entertaining 15 minute video out of it".

One thing I forgot to speculate: a position paper on DEI and Cornell University...

A very weird move. They are now taking a stance on what science is supposed to be.

As someone commented, due to the increasing volume, we would actually need and benefit from more reviews -- with a fixed cycle preferably, and I do not mean LLM slop but SLRs. And in contrary to someone's post, it is actually nice to read things from the industry, and I would actually want that more.

And not only are they taking a stance on science but they have also this allegation:

"Please note: the review conducted at conference workshops generally does not meet the same standard of rigor of traditional peer review and is not enough to have your review article or position paper accepted to arXiv."

In fact -- and supposedly related to the peer review crisis, the situation is exactly the opposite. That is, reviews are usually today of much higher quality at specialized workshops organized by experts in a particular, often niche area.

Maybe arXiv people should visit PubPeer once in a while to see what kind of fraud is going on with conferences (i.e., not workshops and usually not review papers) and their proceedings published by all notable CS publishers? The same goes for journals.

So why this link? Because of the following quote:

"But the striking resemblance to TikTok and other short-form video apps sends the message that these platforms are indeed trying to be a destination for viewing content rather than just a forum for creators."

So we're now going back to the cursed old media?

You nailed the core of the de-skilling and cognitive offloading debate well. And, therefore, their suggestion about more prompting is just band-aid that may actually increase the vicious cycle.