For a while now there has been very little incentive for providing these alongside the paper, and I don't see why exactly 'AI' would change this. I could even see how making it vague to be harder to test with LLMs could be profitable for citation hackers.
Unless reviewing becomes more profitable than publishing, anything that makes both easier will drive one up far more than the other. And it is difficult to conceive of something that would make reviewing much easier without making publishing much easier.
Isn't this just blanket cynicism?
In the long run conceivable we could use AI to hold papers to a much higher standard, audit all the data and code that is associated etc.
> audit all the data and code that is associated
For a while now there has been very little incentive for providing these alongside the paper, and I don't see why exactly 'AI' would change this. I could even see how making it vague to be harder to test with LLMs could be profitable for citation hackers.
Unless reviewing becomes more profitable than publishing, anything that makes both easier will drive one up far more than the other. And it is difficult to conceive of something that would make reviewing much easier without making publishing much easier.