No explicit privacy policy evidence on-domain in provided content.
Terms of Service
—
No terms of service accessible from provided content.
Accessibility
+0.05
Article 27
WordPress implementation includes screen-reader-text CSS, indicating some accessibility accommodations; however, limited evidence of comprehensive accessibility practices.
Mission
—
Site is academic blog; mission apparent but not explicitly stated on provided content.
Editorial Code
—
No explicit editorial guidelines or code evident.
Ownership
—
Columbia University domain; institutional ownership implied.
Access Model
+0.08
Article 19 Article 27
Public blog accessible without paywall or registration; free information access supports Article 19.
There are many really excellent papers out there - the kind which will save you hours/months of work (or even make things that were previously inviable to build viable).
That said, it is amazing how terrible a lot of papers are; people are pressured to publish and therefore seem to get into weird ruts trying to do what they think will be published, rather than what is intellectually interesting...
I assume hep = high energy physics in this context. PI = professor who received a government grant.
Peer review has never really been blind and I suspect PIs will reject papers from "outsiders" even if they are higher quality. This already happens to some extent today when the stakes are lower.
Well… it is happening. You can’t put spilled milk back to bottle. You can do future requirements that will try to stop this behaviour.
E.g. in the submission form could be a mandatory field “I hereby confirm that I wrote the paper personally.” In conditions there will be a note that violating this rule can lead to temporary or permanent ban of authors. In the world where research success is measured by points in WOS, this could lead to slow down the rise of LLM-generated papers.
One thing I have been guilty of, even though I am an AI maximalist, is asking the question: "If AI is so good, why don't we see X". Where X might be (in the context of vibe coding) the next redis, nginx, sqlite, or even linux.
But I really have to remember, we are at the leading edge here. Things take time. There is an opening (generation) and a closing (discernment). Perhaps AI will first generate a huge amount of noise and then whittle it down to the useful signal.
If that view is correct, then this is solid evidence of the amplification of possibility. People will decry the increase of noise, perhaps feeling swamped by it. But the next phase will be separating the wheat from the chaff. It is only in that second phase that we will really know the potential impact.
Noise is going to be the coming years biggest issue for so many fields. A losing battle like arguing with a conspiracy minded relative, you can slowly and clearly address one conspiracy and disprove it, by the time you do, they are deep into 8 new ones.
“And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”
- Ecclesiastes 12:12 (KJV)
I suppose we’re entering TURBO mode for of ‘making many books there is no end’.
> submission numbers in the last couple months have nearly doubled with respect to the stable numbers of previous years
This is showing up (no pun intended) on HN as well. The # of submissions and # of submitters, which traditionally had been surprisingly stable—fluctuating within a fixed range for well over 10 years—has recently been reaching all-time highs. Not double, though...yet.
I think this is solid proof that the bedrock of academia is deeply motivated by money and still defaults to optimizing where it impacts its bottom line. If professors can get more grants and more publications in less time with less spending, of course they are going to be doing that. This isn't just because of AI, but also because of how this system is designed in the first place.
Note the following comment by Jerry Ling: "The effect goes away if you search properly using the original submission date instead of the most recent submission date. By using most recent submission date, your analysis is biased because we’re so close to the beginning of 2026 so ofc we will see a peak that’s just people who have recently modified their submission."
I like AI, I use Codex and ChatGPT like most people are, but I have to say that I am pretty tired of low-effort crap taking over everything, particularly YouTube.
There have always been content mills, but there was still some cost with producing the low-effort "Top 10" or "Iceberg Examination" videos. Now I will turn on a video about any topic, watch it for three minutes, immediately get a kind of uncanny vibe, and then the AI voice will make a pronunciation mistake (e.g. confusing wind, like the weather effect or the winding of a spring), or the script starts getting redundant or repetitive in ways that are common with AI.
And I suspect these kinds of videos will become more common as time goes on. The cost to producing these videos is getting close to "free" meaning that it doesn't take much to make a profit on them, even if their views are relatively low per-video.
If AI has taught me anything, it's that there still is no substitute for effort. I'm sure AI is used in plenty of places where I don't notice it, because the people who used it still put in effort to make a good product. There are people who don't just make a prompt like "make me a fifteen minute video about Chris Chan" and "generate me a thumbnail with Chris Chan with the caption 'he's gone too far'", and instead will use AI as a tool to make something neat.
Genuine effort is hard, and rare, and these AI videos can give the facsimile of something that prior to 2023 was high effort. I hate it.
Medium F: Implicit defense of open discourse and peer review mechanisms
Editorial
+0.10
Structural
+0.05
SETL
+0.07
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Blog post engages with systemic issues in academic publishing; implicitly advocates for transparency and quality in scientific communication. Modest positive lean toward human dignity and open discourse values underlying UDHR.
0.00
Article 1Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to equal dignity and inalienable rights.
0.00
Article 2Non-Discrimination
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to non-discrimination.
0.00
Article 3Life, Liberty, Security
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to right to life, liberty, and security.
0.00
Article 4No Slavery
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to slavery or servitude.
0.00
Article 5No Torture
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to torture or cruel treatment.
0.00
Article 6Legal Personhood
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to legal personhood.
0.00
Article 7Equality Before Law
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to equality before law.
0.00
Article 8Right to Remedy
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to effective remedies for rights violations.
0.00
Article 9No Arbitrary Detention
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to arbitrary arrest or detention.
0.00
Article 10Fair Hearing
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to fair trial rights.
0.00
Article 11Presumption of Innocence
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to criminal liability or ex post facto law.
Blog implements basic analytics tracking (wpstats). Editorial content does not address privacy concerns. Slight structural negative from presence of tracking mechanism, though at minimal scale.
0.00
Article 13Freedom of Movement
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to freedom of movement.
0.00
Article 14Asylum
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to asylum or refuge.
0.00
Article 15Nationality
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to nationality.
0.00
Article 16Marriage & Family
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to marriage or family.
0.00
Article 17Property
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to property rights.
0.00
Article 18Freedom of Thought
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to freedom of conscience or religion.
+0.29
Article 19Freedom of Expression
Medium A: Explicit defense of open discourse and peer commentary F: Framing of AI and academia transparency as public interest issue C: Covers systemic scientific publishing phenomena
Editorial
+0.25
Structural
+0.15
SETL
+0.16
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Editorial explicitly invokes freedom of expression values: author resists censoring AI-generated comments ('won't delete comments just because they are non-human'), welcomes substantive discourse, and frames scientific communication as public concern. Structural: blog platform enables open publication and reader comments. Modest positive lean toward Article 19 protections.
+0.08
Article 20Assembly & Association
Low A: Implicit advocacy for freedom of association in academic discourse
Editorial
+0.10
Structural
+0.05
SETL
+0.07
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Blog permits community participation through comments and open discussion. No explicit association advocacy, but structural design permits collective engagement. Minimal positive signal.
0.00
Article 21Political Participation
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to democratic participation or free elections.
0.00
Article 22Social Security
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to economic and social rights.
-0.06
Article 23Work & Equal Pay
Medium F: Critical framing of exploitative labor practices in academic publishing (grad students/postdocs producing 'mediocre papers')
Editorial
-0.10
Structural
0.00
SETL
-0.10
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Editorial implicitly critiques labor practices in academia: describes system where PIs use grad students and postdocs to produce quantity over quality papers. This frames hierarchical exploitation, though not as direct rights advocacy. Slight negative due to descriptive rather than prescriptive framing of labor concerns.
0.00
Article 24Rest & Leisure
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to rest and leisure.
0.00
Article 25Standard of Living
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to adequate standard of living.
0.00
Article 26Education
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to education.
+0.25
Article 27Cultural Participation
Medium A: Defends value of peer review and scientific integrity standards P: Free public access to academic discourse
Editorial
+0.15
Structural
+0.20
SETL
-0.10
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Content engages with scientific and cultural participation. Editorial defends peer review mechanisms and scientific standards as communal good. Structural: blog provides free public access to academic commentary, supporting participation in scientific culture. Moderate positive lean.
+0.08
Article 28Social & International Order
Low F: Frames scientific publishing as requiring just social order
Editorial
+0.10
Structural
+0.05
SETL
+0.07
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
Implicit appeal to fair and just system for scientific communication. Editorial critiques current system breakdown, suggesting values alignment with Article 28 principles, though not explicit. Minimal positive signal.
0.00
Article 29Duties to Community
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to duties or community responsibilities.
0.00
Article 30No Destruction of Rights
Editorial
0.00
Structural
0.00
SETL
ND
Combined
ND
Context Modifier
ND
No observable content relating to prohibition on destruction of rights.