Commentary on X
I hear you. My immediate answer has been to re-build my trust function to not be based on scientific review but rather on (1) preferably, released artifacts (models or code), (2) less preferably, reputation. Also, I think we need to change the speed with which we release results. Papers are good, but faster-paced communication is better. I think that @percyliang is at the forefront of this with his open research on Marin, and there are lots of other good examples. I don't think the answer is "our old review systems are not working so open research is doomed", but rather we need to be nimble and think about how we can do open research in this new world. Let's do it together :)
2:20 PM · Jul 15, 2026I think there's a real danger in that a few entities with vast resources drown out the rest, the rest gradually come to depend on the few and therefore lose agency. Certainly, the scientific process is buckling under the pressure of relentless slop.
11:46 AM · Jul 15, 2026@gneubig Thanks, Graham. I was sad thinking about this in the context of ACL and ARR, for which I hold great sentimental value. I agree we should do open research, my concern has more to do with the publication/review system, which increasingly seems like an economy under exploitation.
3:31 PM · Jul 15, 2026This ARR is the 1st time I'm having serious doubt about the state of scientific review. I am now increasingly negative about an "open internet" and "open research" in the sense that anybody can put out anything out and the system works because "most" things are well-intentioned.
11:41 AM · Jul 15, 2026View all
@hllo_wrld @gneubig "economy under exploitation" well put
4:04 PM · Jul 15, 2026