Not a great sign when nobody wants to attach their own name to words thrown into the world.

I guess I feel two ways about this. It does could be a "working with the garage open" sort of thing where these are known to be unverified and they're just letting people see the sausage being made.

But that also means marketing and PR should shut the fuck up until things are verified. And they should more clearly annotate lack-of-verification status on their repo.

▲

kant2002 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I believe this is nice marketing trick. Don't have human names have following effects - AI can work alone and produce value - There no person whose career on the line, and who is responsible. - You can skip lot of time on verification of papers, and just show as it is.

Goals of marketing people obviously don't aligned with science goals.

	▲	fluidcruft 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, unverified claims are unverified so there's a real risk of reputational tarnish. Why is it anyone else's job to verify a papermill? Would any journal accept an article that doesn't name people who are accountable? It should correctly be viewed as abuse of peer review. Let them rot.