Humanity is very biased for the culmination of work, considering everything that comes before and after busywork for the lower masses.

Replicating a paper is just as valuable scientifically as publishing it, but how many careers advance through replication?

If we move the goal from "find the solution" to "clear up the LLMs work" that doesn't bode well neither for the attractiveness of the problem nor for the career of the professional that takes the challenge.

▲

derektank an hour ago | parent [-]

>Replicating a paper is just as valuable scientifically as publishing it, but how many careers advance through replication?

I don’t think this is true, especially for novel or unexpected results. I suppose it depends on what you mean by scientifically, and there is a debate in the philosophy of science about what the value of research even is, but a successful replication does not result in substantial updates to one’s beliefs in the way new research does. And if the goal of science is to change our beliefs and bring them closer to what is “real”, successful replications can’t be as valuable as the initial research almost by definition.

	▲	Retric 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		From a pure statistical perspective the first scientific paper shouldn’t update your beliefs as much as the independent replication study. People don’t behave this way, but a high percentage of all papers have known flaws and that goes up even higher when you consider unknown flaws. Replication doesn’t own its own solve the underlying issue, but independent replication removes a huge range of potential issues on top of providing more information.