It would be easy to assume that if prediction markets had a red line for what users shouldn't be allowed to trade on, it would be the likelihood of a nuclear weapon going off. But until very recently, that wasn't the case. Polymarket has pulled markets that let users bet on the probability of a nuclear weapon being detonated before a certain date, following online backlash. The market allowed users to invest in yes or no outcomes for dates like March 31, June 30, and before 2027. Polymarket has allowed bets like these since at least 2023. But scrutiny over them intensified in recent days after high-profile cases of users making large profits on suspiciously timed trades tied to global conflicts, including bets related to the capture of former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran. Beyond concerns about insider trading, critics have also raised the possibility that these marketplaces could create financial incentives for people in power to make certain decisions. “Polymarket has created a market that would monetize a nuclear attack amid increasing concerns that bets are happening among government insiders who can make military decisions,” wrote political writer David Sirota in a post on X on Tuesday. Murphy warned that allowing these wagers to go on could create incentives for people in the Situation Room to think about how they could profit from military decisions instead of focusing on national security. “The Iran War is fueling a new kind of corruption: White House officials secretly profiting off war,” Murphy wrote in the post. Additionally, platforms like Polymarket and its rival Kalshi have faced increasing scrutiny for allowing bets on outcomes that could be tied to death. Kalshi, for example, faced its own controversy after a market on the possible ouster of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei garnered more than $54 million in trades. U.S. rules prohibit contracts that allow traders to profit directly from someone's death or assassination. “We don't list markets directly tied to death,” Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour wrote in a post on X. “When there are markets where potential outcomes involve death, we design the rules to prevent people from profiting from death.” Anyone who entered the market afterward would receive a full refund. Regulators are also signaling that clearer rules may be coming. Back in 2024, the CFTC proposed new rules that would prohibit exchanges from listing contracts tied to events such as war, terrorism, and illegal activity. Polymarket did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Gizmodo. One of world's most important financial institutions is seeking regulatory approval for new outcome-based options.

Founder Summit 2026 in Boston: Don't miss ticket savings of up to $300. President Trump has directed civilian agencies to discontinue use of Anthropic products, but the company was given six months to wind down its operations with the Department of Defense. The next day, the U.S. and Israel launched a surprise attack on Tehran, entering a continued conflict before Trump's directive could be fully executed. And while Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has pledged to designate the company as a supply-chain risk, no official steps have been taken to that end, so there are no legal barriers to using the system. An article in The Washington Post on Wednesday unearthed new details on how Anthropic's systems are being used in conjunction with Palantir's Maven system. Lockheed Martin and other defense contractors began swapping out the company's models this week, according to a Reuters report. Many subcontractors are caught in a similar bind: A managing partner at J2 Ventures told CNBC that 10 of his portfolio companies “have backed off of their use of Claude for defense use cases and are in active processes to replace the service with another one.” The biggest open question is whether Hegseth will make good on the supply-chain risk designation, which would likely result in a heated legal case. But in the meantime, one of the leading AI labs is quickly being partitioned out of military tech — even as it's used in an active war zone. MyFitnessPal has acquired Cal AI, the viral calorie app built by teens Why did Netflix back down from its deal to acquire Warner Bros.? India disrupts access to popular developer platform Supabase with blocking order Jack Dorsey just halved the size of Block's employee base — and he says your company is next

Amazon seemed to agree with that assessment in 2018 when it first planted a flag in Nashville and announced plans for a new “Center of Excellence for its Operations business.” The Seattle-based tech giant said at the time it planned to employ 5,000 people in “Music City.” The pandemic slowed some of that initial growth, but Amazon has shared updates along the way about its offices and its affordable housing commitments in Nashville. Niccol led a similar revamp previously as the top executive at Chipotle, and at Starbucks is pairing old-school service standards with new technology, including an AI-infused coffee ordering component. In January, Starbucks reported its first U.S. comparable transaction growth in two years, saying that both loyalty members and casual customers are visiting more often. The plan to grow out of state, away from its longtime corporate home in Seattle, is likely to produce some jitters, not just among coffee drinkers, but with those concerned that tax initiatives in Seattle and Washington state are scaring away big business and innovators. Tech leaders have been sounding the alarm over a so‑called “millionaires tax” — a state income tax that would impose a 9.9% levy on personal income above $1 million — as well as an increase to Washington's capital gains tax. Have a scoop that you'd like GeekWire to cover? Starbucks AI assistant, powered by Microsoft, aims to help baristas focus on coffee and customers Starbucks hires Amazon grocery tech leader as new CTO amid turnaround push Starbucks to lay off 1,100 corporate workers, updates remote work policy New Starbucks CEO lays out his vision: Get the morning right, invest in tech, focus on coffee

Microsoft's move to partner with Elon Musk's xAI while simultaneously being sued by the tech mogul has gone beyond mere irony to become potential courtroom evidence. In a series of pretrial motions ahead of a highly anticipated trial, lawyers for Microsoft and OpenAI are fighting to introduce xAI's recent business deals — including the integration of its Grok 4 model into Microsoft's Azure AI Foundry — as evidence in their defense. Microsoft argues that the partnership proves its business model is simply to be a neutral host for competing AI models. OpenAI goes further, arguing that Musk's dual role as a partner and plaintiff exposes a financial motive that undermines his claim to be acting on principle. Microsoft has invested more than $13 billion in OpenAI and held a 27% equity stake in its new for-profit entity prior to the ChatGPT maker's latest funding round. Microsoft is asking the judge to admit multiple exhibits on this topic, including a shareholder letter referencing Azure AI Foundry's roster of AI partners, and a post on Musk's X social media platform by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella welcoming Grok 4 to Azure AI Foundry. The partnership dates to May 2025, when Nadella announced the addition of Grok models to Azure AI Foundry at Microsoft's Build developer conference. Musk appeared alongside Nadella in a video shown at the event, addressing topics including xAI's commitment to AI safety, which is an issue that has since become a central point of disagreement in the case. Hosting multiple AI models from competing developers, Microsoft argues, is “core to our Microsoft DNA” and helps explain why it partnered with OpenAI in the first place. That Musk is simultaneously suing Microsoft for that partnership while his own company benefits from the same platform, Microsoft says, goes directly to his credibility as a witness. These are the same assets he now says were legally required to remain open-source and locked within a nonprofit structure. OpenAI also wants to introduce evidence about xAI's safety record, saying Musk can't put OpenAI's safety practices on trial while shielding his own company from scrutiny. Musk's own deposition, filed publicly last week, adds another dimension to the safety debate. In it, he attacked OpenAI's safety record, saying “nobody has committed suicide because of Grok, but apparently they have because of ChatGPT.” That was a reference to lawsuits alleging ChatGPT's conversational tactics have contributed to negative mental health outcomes. Since that deposition was recorded, xAI has faced safety concerns of its own, including an incident in which Grok generated nonconsensual nude images, prompting inquiries by the California Attorney General and regulators in Europe, according to TechCrunch. Microsoft is staying out of those issues, focusing instead on the narrower argument that its partnership with xAI reflects how it does business more broadly: hosting competing AI models from dozens of developers on the same platform it uses to serve OpenAI. Elon and Satya, together again: Microsoft brings Musk's xAI models to Azure, despite OpenAI feud Elon Musk's xAI plans Seattle hub with engineering jobs paying up to $440k

The push follows years of dealership opposition — and Rivian's threat to bypass legislators entirely with a November ballot initiative. For years, EV makers have battled to level the sales playing field with Tesla. SB 6354 includes a $10,000 penalty for automakers that break the law and conduct direct sales or leases. The legislation also increases the vehicle dealer documentary service fee from $200 to $250 for a decade, allocating some of those funds to state accounts supporting EV purchases for low-income shoppers and public transit. Microsoft's mission: empowering every person and organization on the planet to achieve more. Learn how Microsoft is thinking about responsible artificial intelligence, regulation, sustainability, and fundamental rights. Washington state's data center regulation bill fails following pushback from tech industry In new letter to governor, Seattle tech leaders say income tax proposal will hurt region's AI innovation Microsoft urges major changes to Washington data center regulations as bill nears final vote Tesla could lose its big EV sales advantage in Washington state if lawmakers pass new rules Tesla retains advantage in Washington state as effort stalls to expand direct EV sales

Sea-level rise is a key measure of how climate change will shape our future. Coastal communities rely on accurate coastal hazard assessments to manage escalating flood risks, protect infrastructure, and mitigate economic losses—but new findings show that most of the research is inherently flawed. The study, published Wednesday in Nature, found that a staggering number of sea-level rise impact assessments are based on drastic underestimations of current sea levels. Of the 385 peer-reviewed scientific papers the authors analyzed, more than 90% relied on assumed sea levels based on gravitational models called “geoids” rather than direct sea-level and land-elevation measurements. Consequently, these assessments have underestimated the timing and severity of sea-level rise impacts. After accounting for this widespread methodological issue, the authors determined that 3.28 feet (1 meter) of global sea level rise could inundate 37% more land area than previously thought, impacting 77 million to 132 million people across the globe. “What our study uncovers is, in a way, a methodological blind spot that is positioned between—I would say—traditionally disconnected scientific disciplines,” co-author Philip Minderhoud, an associate professor of coastal geoscience at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, said at a Tuesday press briefing. He conducted the study alongside Katharina Seeger, a geographer at the University of Padova in Italy and a guest researcher at Wageningen. These models are mathematical representations of Earth that approximate average sea level based on two factors: gravity and the planet's rotation. But actual sea levels are constantly influenced by these forces, not to mention other factors such as temperature and salinity. Only direct measurements—primarily via tide gauges and satellite observations—can capture this complexity. While geoids can provide a theoretical baseline, using them as a starting point for sea-level rise projections and coastal hazard assessments inevitably leads to inaccuracies, as this new study shows. “I thought that was terrible that people have done that and were unaware of what the authors point out,” David Holland, a New York University professor of mathematics and atmosphere-ocean science who was not involved in the study, told Gizmodo. “I think the authors have made an excellent point and a major contribution.” In areas where the models are least accurate—often in parts of the Global South—actual sea levels could be 18 to 24.9 feet (5.5 to 7.6 meters) higher than assumed. But Bob Kopp, a Rutgers University climate scientist and professor who was not involved in the study, told Gizmodo in an email that while Seeger and Minderhoud make an important technical point, it's easy to overstate its broader significance. “While certainly important to a summary global metric such as this, such statements are only important to indicate that coastal risk matters for a lot of people,” Kopp said, adding that uncertainties tied to human behavior—such as climate migration and coastal adaptation measures—are likely to have a greater influence on future coastal risk than technical differences in sea-level baselines. Minderhoud and Seeger said ensuring such reports represent the realities of sea-level rise in the world's most vulnerable areas is critical, as this spurs global climate action and helps communities garner international support for adaptation efforts and, in the worst cases, migration. The authors therefore call for a paradigm shift in coastal hazard research. They urge researchers to reevaluate their assessments to ensure that they are based on properly integrated sea-level and land-elevation data, and not solely on geoid models. While 9% of the 385 studies tried to combine actual sea-level and land elevation data with geoid models, most handled it incorrectly, leading to conversion errors and misaligned measurements. They even converted several state-of-the-art digital elevation models to coastal sea-level height, providing a jumping-off point for researchers to rework past assessments and produce better ones going forward. As for policymakers, Minderhoud and Seeger encourage them to check the information that underlies their decision-making and ensure that it is based on locally validated data. By charting a path toward more accurate coastal hazard research, the authors aim to help scientists and policymakers better protect communities from the accelerating impacts of sea-level rise. Their work could reshape planning and adaptation efforts, helping ensure that vulnerable regions receive the resources they need before it's too late. Fortunately, emissions data is increasingly being used to hold these companies accountable.

arXiV is not considered a credible citation source since anyone can publish anything. TPCs don't use it in their list of citations, neither do grant funding agencies or government institutions.The current academic enterprise relies heavily on third-party gatekeeping. We rely on others to do the vetting for us. The current academic enterprise relies heavily on third-party gatekeeping. We rely on others to do the vetting for us. Any gatekeeper will naturally tend towards charging for access over time: It's a captive market, the economics demands it. We don't actually have the time to read every possible paper someone has for us, because keeping up with literature takes time that we don't have. And while relying on the quality of the journal or conference as a metric for "is this paper worth reading?" has issues, to be honest, it is more effective than other proposed solutions. When I have done the literature searches that delved into the unknown, low-quality tiers of journals... no, those results were not worth the time I spent reading them. Journals (in the sense of whoever is on the editorial board) don't need to cease to exist; they just need to transition to "here's our list this month of what the best new articles are on X topic". But having a group of editors that cultivate a list of good articles (as well as the peer review process that can, in an ideal world, serve to improve a paper) can serve to make sifting through arXiv less overwhelming, and draw attention to papers in particular subfields, subject matter, or whatever other criteria might be relevant. Yelp, TripAdvisor, wire cutter, hell even Google results themselves.Once you start poisoning that well, it's difficult if not impossible to claw it back. There would be perverse incentives where the publisher benefits from accepting more articles. For good journals that would be a conflict of interests at best where they would optimise the marketing-to-acceptance ratio. I can't believe I am writing something good about scientific publisher, but at least when the reader pays they are incentivise to publish things that have an audience. And it's not hypothetical, there are already terrible publishers doing this. I guess review fraud will need to be considered as well. This is actually what ruined my respect for Academia.My Science PhD buddy looked at the journal title and the claim, then said: "Its true! Who cares about the journal, I want to know data and methodology.I've basically never forgiven Academia since this. I see even Ivys put out bad research and journals will publish bad research (Replication crisis and the ivy fake psychology studies)For outsiders, there is a prestige to being a PhD or working as a professor. Now that I'm mid career and lived through the previous events I mentioned + seeing who stuck with academia... Who cares about the journal, I want to know data and methodology.I've basically never forgiven Academia since this. I see even Ivys put out bad research and journals will publish bad research (Replication crisis and the ivy fake psychology studies)For outsiders, there is a prestige to being a PhD or working as a professor. Now that I'm mid career and lived through the previous events I mentioned + seeing who stuck with academia... Who cares about the journal, I want to know data and methodology.I've basically never forgiven Academia since this. I see even Ivys put out bad research and journals will publish bad research (Replication crisis and the ivy fake psychology studies)For outsiders, there is a prestige to being a PhD or working as a professor. Now that I'm mid career and lived through the previous events I mentioned + seeing who stuck with academia... I see even Ivys put out bad research and journals will publish bad research (Replication crisis and the ivy fake psychology studies)For outsiders, there is a prestige to being a PhD or working as a professor. Now that I'm mid career and lived through the previous events I mentioned + seeing who stuck with academia... Now that I'm mid career and lived through the previous events I mentioned + seeing who stuck with academia... If you even knew these people, you'd know that most that remain in academia never considered industry in the first place. In fact, it is the other way around. They did so, despite knowing they'd make more money, but chose to remain in academia because they wanted to spend their life pursuing research topics that interested them with independence. Sometimes they feel the fool when money is tight and the hours are relentlessly long, but never have I seen it happen because they were rejected by industry. Spoken like someone who never went through grad school at a competitive R1 programIt was already a grueling 60-80 hour grind every week with frequent all nighters, high-pressure deadlines, absolute minimal pay, thankless duties, and plenty of politics. Why should we be expected to review random papers on arxiv too...? It was already a grueling 60-80 hour grind every week with frequent all nighters, high-pressure deadlines, absolute minimal pay, thankless duties, and plenty of politics. Why should we be expected to review random papers on arxiv too...? We already paid our dues by helping peer review (for free) a half dozen papers for each one we submitted. Why should we be expected to review random papers on arxiv too...? in CS you will have intense grind weeks around conference deadlines and a more manageable but challenging pace of life otherwise.in wet lab science you live by the schedule set by your experiments, which often involves intense hours. in wet lab science you live by the schedule set by your experiments, which often involves intense hours. The GP is not saying to review each paper you read or cite. They're complaining that a colleague accepted a claim after just reading the title and where the paper was published. You don't need a degree to understand how much utter junk science is being published by those who think they are superior to you. Just read a few actual papers end to end and look at the data vs conclusions and it becomes totally obvious very rapidly that you cannot “trust the science” since it's rarely actual science being done any longer.The academic community has utterly failed at understanding they needed to cull this behavior early and mercilessly. You can't take any published paper at face value any longer without going direct to primary sources and bouncing it off an expert in the space you still trust to give you the actual truth. The academic community has utterly failed at understanding they needed to cull this behavior early and mercilessly. You can't take any published paper at face value any longer without going direct to primary sources and bouncing it off an expert in the space you still trust to give you the actual truth. You can't take any published paper at face value any longer without going direct to primary sources and bouncing it off an expert in the space you still trust to give you the actual truth. Somehow the general public and policymakers got the idea that if a paper gets published in any non-fake journal, this is an official endorsement that it's 100% correct, everything in it can be read in isolation, and it's safe to use all claims in the paper to direct policy immediately.I think academia is partially to blame for encouraging people to believe this rather than insisting on explaining the nuances of how to interpret published research. On the other hand, nobody wants to hear a message that things are nuanced, and they will have to do costly hard work to get at the truth.I think a world where "you can take any published paper at face value...without going direct to primary sources and bouncing it off an expert in the space" would be great, but it never existed, and it's just fundamentally impossible. On the other hand, nobody wants to hear a message that things are nuanced, and they will have to do costly hard work to get at the truth.I think a world where "you can take any published paper at face value...without going direct to primary sources and bouncing it off an expert in the space" would be great, but it never existed, and it's just fundamentally impossible. I think a world where "you can take any published paper at face value...without going direct to primary sources and bouncing it off an expert in the space" would be great, but it never existed, and it's just fundamentally impossible. I've no idea what the actual stats are on faith in academia overall today, but I don't think it is looking good. These people take themselves too seriously, and other people only take them seriously when there are material ramifications for not doing so. Otherwise, they're viewed as pompous busy-bodies and don't do themselves any favors by playing to the role. Unless you are a Claude Shannon type, adding fundamental new knowledge to humanity's corpus is generally actually hard - at least in science & engineering. If you feel differently, I look forward to reading your groundbreaking papers! Various levels of the US government use my data.To be honest, I think I got lucky + I was a (hardcore) Stoic for a decade + my hobby was scientific. My washing machine creates a lot of value for me. The time it saves me is incredibly valuable.Most machines that work really hard are valuable because they free up time.This wasn't the clever burn you thought it was. Most machines that work really hard are valuable because they free up time.This wasn't the clever burn you thought it was. IMO, academics that do this are not very competent, because we have plenty of research suggesting that higher-profile journals are in fact less trustworthy in many ways, or that there is no correlation at all between reputation and quality (see my other post here in this thread).Yes, some trash journals publish all trash, but, beyond that, competent researchers scan the abstract, look at sample sizes and basic stats, and if those check out, you skip to the methods and look for red flags there. Also, most early publications will be on an arXiv-like place anyway so you can't look to reputation yet.Likewise, serious analytic reviews like meta-analyses don't factor in e.g. impact factor or paper citations, since that would be nonsense. They focus on methodology and stats.I really think we ought to shame academics that are filtering papers based on journal alone, it is almost always the wrong way to make a quick judgement. Yes, some trash journals publish all trash, but, beyond that, competent researchers scan the abstract, look at sample sizes and basic stats, and if those check out, you skip to the methods and look for red flags there. Also, most early publications will be on an arXiv-like place anyway so you can't look to reputation yet.Likewise, serious analytic reviews like meta-analyses don't factor in e.g. impact factor or paper citations, since that would be nonsense. They focus on methodology and stats.I really think we ought to shame academics that are filtering papers based on journal alone, it is almost always the wrong way to make a quick judgement. Likewise, serious analytic reviews like meta-analyses don't factor in e.g. impact factor or paper citations, since that would be nonsense. They focus on methodology and stats.I really think we ought to shame academics that are filtering papers based on journal alone, it is almost always the wrong way to make a quick judgement. I really think we ought to shame academics that are filtering papers based on journal alone, it is almost always the wrong way to make a quick judgement. More competent researchers make journal rep only a very small factor, and it is not via the "high rep = more trustworthy" direction (which is the bad heuristic), it is "pay-to-publish journals = not trustworthy" (better heuristic).Once you have ruled out a publication being in a trash journal, reputation is only a very minor factor in consideration, and methodological and substantive issues are what matter. Once you have ruled out a publication being in a trash journal, reputation is only a very minor factor in consideration, and methodological and substantive issues are what matter. Of course academics check where stuff is published. But reputation only is helpful in letting you ignore trash journals, once you are out of trash land, rep is just not a very meaningful factor, and you have to focus on methodology and substance. I've read a lot of “papers” submitted by startup founders that are obviously ChatGPT written slop uploaded to arXiV. They then go to investor and show their record of “published research”. Smart investors are catching on but there are a lot of investors who associate journals with quality and filtering and assume having a paper on there means something.The filtering and curation problem is real. It seems like academic pettiness or laziness from the outside, until you see the volume of bad “papers” that everyone is trying to publish to chase the incentives. It seems like academic pettiness or laziness from the outside, until you see the volume of bad “papers” that everyone is trying to publish to chase the incentives. Piggy back this system so that the funding source publishes the papers itself, and researchers can only publish their papers that are directly funded.This system requires the cooperation of an organization to build the publishing infrastructure, but this could be a lowest capable bidder, and less drag on the system overall. This system requires the cooperation of an organization to build the publishing infrastructure, but this could be a lowest capable bidder, and less drag on the system overall. This article pointed to a few cases where people tried to do the thing, i.e. the pledge taken by individual researchers, and the requirements placed by certain funding channels, and those sound like a solid attempt to do the thing. This shows that people care and are somewhat willing to organise about it.But the thing I don't understand is why this can't happen at the department level? If you're an influential figure at a top-5 department in your field, you're friends with your counterparts at the other 4. Why don't you club together and say "why don't we all have moratorium on publishing in $journal for our departments? "No temptation for individual research groups to violate the pledge. No dependence on individual funding channels to influence the policy. Just, suddenly, $journal isn't the top publication in that field any more?I'm sure there are lots of varied reasons why this is difficult but fundamentally it seems like the obvious approach? But the thing I don't understand is why this can't happen at the department level? If you're an influential figure at a top-5 department in your field, you're friends with your counterparts at the other 4. Why don't you club together and say "why don't we all have moratorium on publishing in $journal for our departments? "No temptation for individual research groups to violate the pledge. No dependence on individual funding channels to influence the policy. Just, suddenly, $journal isn't the top publication in that field any more?I'm sure there are lots of varied reasons why this is difficult but fundamentally it seems like the obvious approach? No temptation for individual research groups to violate the pledge. No dependence on individual funding channels to influence the policy. Just, suddenly, $journal isn't the top publication in that field any more?I'm sure there are lots of varied reasons why this is difficult but fundamentally it seems like the obvious approach? I'm sure there are lots of varied reasons why this is difficult but fundamentally it seems like the obvious approach? Generally speaking they're old people who became influential by publishing in these journals. Their presentations all include prominent text indicating which figures came from luxury journals. If Science and Nature lose their prestige so do they (or at least that's what they think)This was very apparent when eLife changed their publishing model. Their was a big outpouring of rage from older scientists who had published in eLife when it was a more standard "high impact" journal. Lots of "you're ruining your reputation and therefore mine". This was very apparent when eLife changed their publishing model. Their was a big outpouring of rage from older scientists who had published in eLife when it was a more standard "high impact" journal. Lots of "you're ruining your reputation and therefore mine". I see: my friend has 10-15 years of experience in their field, they have enjoyed success and basically got the equivalent of a steady stream of promotions.I map this onto my big tech/startup experience. I mentally model them as: they are "on top of the pile" of people that still do technical work. Everyone who still has the ability to boss them around, is a manager/institutional politician type figure who wouldn't interfere in such decisions as which journal to publish in.But probably this mapping is wrong.Also, I probably have a poor model of what agency and independence looks like in academia. In my big tech world, I have a pretty detailed model in my head of what things I can and can't influence. I don't have this model for academia which is gonna inevitably lead to a lot of "why don't you just".Same thing happens to me when I moan about work to my friends. and I kinda mumble "er yeah but it doesn't really work like that". So here I'm probably doing that in reverse. I mentally model them as: they are "on top of the pile" of people that still do technical work. Everyone who still has the ability to boss them around, is a manager/institutional politician type figure who wouldn't interfere in such decisions as which journal to publish in.But probably this mapping is wrong.Also, I probably have a poor model of what agency and independence looks like in academia. In my big tech world, I have a pretty detailed model in my head of what things I can and can't influence. I don't have this model for academia which is gonna inevitably lead to a lot of "why don't you just".Same thing happens to me when I moan about work to my friends. and I kinda mumble "er yeah but it doesn't really work like that". So here I'm probably doing that in reverse. But probably this mapping is wrong.Also, I probably have a poor model of what agency and independence looks like in academia. In my big tech world, I have a pretty detailed model in my head of what things I can and can't influence. I don't have this model for academia which is gonna inevitably lead to a lot of "why don't you just".Same thing happens to me when I moan about work to my friends. and I kinda mumble "er yeah but it doesn't really work like that". So here I'm probably doing that in reverse. Also, I probably have a poor model of what agency and independence looks like in academia. In my big tech world, I have a pretty detailed model in my head of what things I can and can't influence. I don't have this model for academia which is gonna inevitably lead to a lot of "why don't you just".Same thing happens to me when I moan about work to my friends. and I kinda mumble "er yeah but it doesn't really work like that". So here I'm probably doing that in reverse. and I kinda mumble "er yeah but it doesn't really work like that". So here I'm probably doing that in reverse. For example, spearheaded by Knuth, the community effectively abandoned the Journal of Algorithms and replaced with with ACM Transactions on Algorithms.however it's difficult. a big factor is that professors feel obligated towards their students, who need to get jobs. even if the subfield can shift to everybody publishing in a new journal, non-specialists making hiring decisions may not update for a few years which hurts students in the job market. a big factor is that professors feel obligated towards their students, who need to get jobs. even if the subfield can shift to everybody publishing in a new journal, non-specialists making hiring decisions may not update for a few years which hurts students in the job market. I think it'd be a big ask from someone whose role doesn't typically cover that sort of decision. > So the solution here is straightforward: every government grant should stipulate that the research it supports can't be published in a for-profit journal. If the public paid for it, it shouldn't be paywalled.The article then acknowledges this isn't a magic solution to all the problems discussed, but it's so simple and makes so much sense as a first step.I'm no expert here and there are probably unintended consequences or other ways to game that system for profit, but even if so wouldn't that still be a better starting point? The article then acknowledges this isn't a magic solution to all the problems discussed, but it's so simple and makes so much sense as a first step.I'm no expert here and there are probably unintended consequences or other ways to game that system for profit, but even if so wouldn't that still be a better starting point? I'm no expert here and there are probably unintended consequences or other ways to game that system for profit, but even if so wouldn't that still be a better starting point? Only difference is that the author is writing for a wide audience and his best angle to change the world is probably to influence the thinking of future policymakers. While I am just an annoying "why don't you just" guy, my "audience" is just the friends I happen to have in prestigious research groups.Adam M also probably has lots of friends in prestigious research groups (IIUC although he complains a lot about academia he was quite successful within it, at least on its own terms). And the fact that he instead chooses to advocate government policy changes instead of what I'm proposing, is probably a good indication that he knows something I don't about the motivatioms of influential academics. Adam M also probably has lots of friends in prestigious research groups (IIUC although he complains a lot about academia he was quite successful within it, at least on its own terms). And the fact that he instead chooses to advocate government policy changes instead of what I'm proposing, is probably a good indication that he knows something I don't about the motivatioms of influential academics. (Maybe you'd need an exception for fields where the centre of mass for funding is well outside of the US, though). Computer science as a discipline has always been relatively open and has had its own norms on publication that are different from most other fields (the top venues are almost always conferences rather than journals, and turn-around times on publications are relatively short), so it isn't a surprise that CS is one of the first areas to embrace open access.Still, having a single example of how this approach works and how grass-roots efforts by CS researchers led to change in the community is useful to demonstrate that this idea is viable, and to motivate other research communities to follow suit. Still, having a single example of how this approach works and how grass-roots efforts by CS researchers led to change in the community is useful to demonstrate that this idea is viable, and to motivate other research communities to follow suit. Surprised that hasn't been mentioned here already. Jumped out to me immediately as a morbidly curious bit of trivia. People who write such sentences have no idea what they are talking about or are being intentionally naive for whatever reason.Just because your one-sentence solution reads simple doesn't make the actual solution simple. Unless the push for such changes is significant enough to overcome the current state of affairs (due to public opinion, redistribution of power or money, etc. Unless the push for such changes is significant enough to overcome the current state of affairs (due to public opinion, redistribution of power or money, etc. There are plenty of simple solutions to real problems whose only blocker is upsetting the status quo. That said, it is still a very _straightforward_ solution. I have said "nothing will change" unless these things change; I didn't say you/we shouldn't do anything. Fun fact, all of those things happened and this is already government policy for any NSF grant: https://www.nsf.gov/policies/document/faq-public-accessSo maybe consider that when you give up on obvious things that are good based on some conspiracy theory that the "man" is trying to keep you down, what you're actually doing is being part of the system and endorsing it. So maybe consider that when you give up on obvious things that are good based on some conspiracy theory that the "man" is trying to keep you down, what you're actually doing is being part of the system and endorsing it. I don't have the rigor for publishing but other individual experimenters might. It would be great if they could contribute to building human knowledge.I think the only real solution is a distributed federated publishing and review platform. Just like physical journal collections, bigger institution would host more topics. Anybody can participate in the publication and review process. It would be very hard to convince people it is trustworthy.There shouldn't be any prestige in publishing a paper. I think the only real solution is a distributed federated publishing and review platform. Just like physical journal collections, bigger institution would host more topics. Anybody can participate in the publication and review process. It would be very hard to convince people it is trustworthy.There shouldn't be any prestige in publishing a paper. There shouldn't be any prestige in publishing a paper. If you think journals are expensive, try sending your whole lab to a conference in another country. (does that ever make for awkward small talk...)For all their many faults, journals provide access to a really wide audience, and- in theory- make it possible to form connections who wouldn't be able to meet directly. For all their many faults, journals provide access to a really wide audience, and- in theory- make it possible to form connections who wouldn't be able to meet directly. while the author is correct that the for-profit publishing is definitely a negative externality, i can't help but feel they are missing the forest for the trees when it comes to all the other worse issues in academia.a full explanation of which would be much too onerous for a hn comment, but in no particular order: rampant scientific fraud, waste of tax payer dollars, wage suppression via "students" and visa-dependent laborers (J1 visa abuse), publish or perish evaluation criteria, lack of management training, blatant and rampant racism, etc. etc.the whole system needs to burn down and be rebuilt from the ground up. a full explanation of which would be much too onerous for a hn comment, but in no particular order: rampant scientific fraud, waste of tax payer dollars, wage suppression via "students" and visa-dependent laborers (J1 visa abuse), publish or perish evaluation criteria, lack of management training, blatant and rampant racism, etc. etc.the whole system needs to burn down and be rebuilt from the ground up. Though at least in my field part of that is budgets are so tight it seems like most of the effort is needed to just keep the lights on. I don't see anyone who has bandwidth to help burn things down or rebuild in my department as much of the staff are already working unpaid overtime (and good luck getting funding for hiring many more). They voluntarily choose to pay for and publish in journals. They could just decide not to do this. Literally, just don't publish in a journal, anymore, ever. Upload your study paper to a Dell Inspiron sitting in a closet in the university faculty lounge, connect it to the internet. You just spent years of time and money to come up with a research conclusion. Without some kind of process to vet it independently, and publish it in a place where people can find the latest vetted papers, it's too much hassle for most people to ever find, much less trust.#2. Universities give research grants to "well respected" researchers. You become a "well respected" researcher by having academic achievements. You get academic achievements by... doing research that gets published in a journal. !Therefore, the reason journals still exist, is Universities desperately need them. But they don't really have a choice.Could Universities replace journals with something else? Well, they could work hard to replace the "prestige machine" with other processes (which must enable them to get money, by showing their researchers are good, with vetted papers, published somewhere people will see them). But it turns out, that costs a considerable amount of money, time, and resources... which is entirely what the "evil journal publishers" do. Universities would have to spin out their own entire corporation to do all that work, which would be a journal publisher. "Let's just throw papers on arXiv" does nothing to solve the money and prestige problem. So the world continues to turn as it has. You just spent years of time and money to come up with a research conclusion. Without some kind of process to vet it independently, and publish it in a place where people can find the latest vetted papers, it's too much hassle for most people to ever find, much less trust.#2. Universities give research grants to "well respected" researchers. You become a "well respected" researcher by having academic achievements. You get academic achievements by... doing research that gets published in a journal. !Therefore, the reason journals still exist, is Universities desperately need them. But they don't really have a choice.Could Universities replace journals with something else? Well, they could work hard to replace the "prestige machine" with other processes (which must enable them to get money, by showing their researchers are good, with vetted papers, published somewhere people will see them). But it turns out, that costs a considerable amount of money, time, and resources... which is entirely what the "evil journal publishers" do. Universities would have to spin out their own entire corporation to do all that work, which would be a journal publisher. "Let's just throw papers on arXiv" does nothing to solve the money and prestige problem. So the world continues to turn as it has. Universities give research grants to "well respected" researchers. You become a "well respected" researcher by having academic achievements. You get academic achievements by... doing research that gets published in a journal. !Therefore, the reason journals still exist, is Universities desperately need them. But they don't really have a choice.Could Universities replace journals with something else? Well, they could work hard to replace the "prestige machine" with other processes (which must enable them to get money, by showing their researchers are good, with vetted papers, published somewhere people will see them). But it turns out, that costs a considerable amount of money, time, and resources... which is entirely what the "evil journal publishers" do. Universities would have to spin out their own entire corporation to do all that work, which would be a journal publisher. "Let's just throw papers on arXiv" does nothing to solve the money and prestige problem. So the world continues to turn as it has. !Therefore, the reason journals still exist, is Universities desperately need them. But they don't really have a choice.Could Universities replace journals with something else? Well, they could work hard to replace the "prestige machine" with other processes (which must enable them to get money, by showing their researchers are good, with vetted papers, published somewhere people will see them). But it turns out, that costs a considerable amount of money, time, and resources... which is entirely what the "evil journal publishers" do. Universities would have to spin out their own entire corporation to do all that work, which would be a journal publisher. "Let's just throw papers on arXiv" does nothing to solve the money and prestige problem. So the world continues to turn as it has. Therefore, the reason journals still exist, is Universities desperately need them. But they don't really have a choice.Could Universities replace journals with something else? Well, they could work hard to replace the "prestige machine" with other processes (which must enable them to get money, by showing their researchers are good, with vetted papers, published somewhere people will see them). But it turns out, that costs a considerable amount of money, time, and resources... which is entirely what the "evil journal publishers" do. Universities would have to spin out their own entire corporation to do all that work, which would be a journal publisher. "Let's just throw papers on arXiv" does nothing to solve the money and prestige problem. So the world continues to turn as it has. Well, they could work hard to replace the "prestige machine" with other processes (which must enable them to get money, by showing their researchers are good, with vetted papers, published somewhere people will see them). But it turns out, that costs a considerable amount of money, time, and resources... which is entirely what the "evil journal publishers" do. Universities would have to spin out their own entire corporation to do all that work, which would be a journal publisher. "Let's just throw papers on arXiv" does nothing to solve the money and prestige problem. So the world continues to turn as it has. "Let's just throw papers on arXiv" does nothing to solve the money and prestige problem. So the world continues to turn as it has. It therefore makes sense that they do not pay academics. You don't pay your customers.That means they need to generate a secondary customer base elsewhere, who will pay. That socializes the cost of providing the service, since academics individually wouldn't be willing and able to pay.Once journals have established a reputation, their policies and paywalls and fees are the result of trying to signal exclusivity and set an optimum market price.Until the supply side of the research market largely agrees on a way to use open-access repositories like arXiv as a primary career-advancement signal, complaining about closed-access journals is tilting at windmills.Changing the law to prevent journals from being able to copyright anything could potentially force the research industry to rapidly develop a new solution, but at the cost of short-term chaos and career instability for new academics. That means they need to generate a secondary customer base elsewhere, who will pay. That socializes the cost of providing the service, since academics individually wouldn't be willing and able to pay.Once journals have established a reputation, their policies and paywalls and fees are the result of trying to signal exclusivity and set an optimum market price.Until the supply side of the research market largely agrees on a way to use open-access repositories like arXiv as a primary career-advancement signal, complaining about closed-access journals is tilting at windmills.Changing the law to prevent journals from being able to copyright anything could potentially force the research industry to rapidly develop a new solution, but at the cost of short-term chaos and career instability for new academics. Once journals have established a reputation, their policies and paywalls and fees are the result of trying to signal exclusivity and set an optimum market price.Until the supply side of the research market largely agrees on a way to use open-access repositories like arXiv as a primary career-advancement signal, complaining about closed-access journals is tilting at windmills.Changing the law to prevent journals from being able to copyright anything could potentially force the research industry to rapidly develop a new solution, but at the cost of short-term chaos and career instability for new academics. Until the supply side of the research market largely agrees on a way to use open-access repositories like arXiv as a primary career-advancement signal, complaining about closed-access journals is tilting at windmills.Changing the law to prevent journals from being able to copyright anything could potentially force the research industry to rapidly develop a new solution, but at the cost of short-term chaos and career instability for new academics. Changing the law to prevent journals from being able to copyright anything could potentially force the research industry to rapidly develop a new solution, but at the cost of short-term chaos and career instability for new academics. I feel like this is one of those classic local minima where a community starving for resources fights vociferously amongst itself because they have internalized that they can't win externally. From where I sit outside academia the problem with science seems obvious: there is not nearly enough money going into it.I doubt bringing the heads of for-profit journals would change that under current national conditions in the U.S. There is a difference between pre and post publication peer review. Historically, there was some link: if an article had problems, you would open the table of contents n months later and (might) see a letter or further discussion. Now, the table of contents is google, and many readers have weaker links to the same venue over time for followup. (studies have shown that retractions are often cited with the original intent years after a correction was published)2. The phrase "for profit" is doing a lot of work in this article. Some mega publishers, like ACS, are technically non profit member societies stapled to a mega-publisher, and have been strongly opposed to OA policies in the past. Outsourcing trust to someone who isn't the current evil... will only get you so far. No matter who takes over publishing, scientists are going to need to evolve new ways of evaluating work and each other, as the field grows far beyond what a small network can handle. Journals are a bad metric, but how does your dean evaluate 50 people hired to be the world's leading experts on (new and emerging field)? I've read plenty of these publisher=bad screeds, and most stop there. PubPeer exists for some, Twitter walkthroughs of papers were a great thing for a while, or there's also talk of overlay journals that decouple the act of publication (as a preprint) from the review-and-prestige piece.4. The current system does two things: (a) provides a record of work done by students, who may labor under graduation requirements to publish something, whether their project is successful or not, (b) a shared record of current state of human knowledge, be it from researchers at a small college, or google, or pharma. Goal (a) puts a lot of pressure on peer review in "low tier" journals that even the reviewers don't like to cite, and I've had my doubts as to whether this is the best yield for effort. There is a difference between pre and post publication peer review. Historically, there was some link: if an article had problems, you would open the table of contents n months later and (might) see a letter or further discussion. Now, the table of contents is google, and many readers have weaker links to the same venue over time for followup. (studies have shown that retractions are often cited with the original intent years after a correction was published)2. The phrase "for profit" is doing a lot of work in this article. Some mega publishers, like ACS, are technically non profit member societies stapled to a mega-publisher, and have been strongly opposed to OA policies in the past. Outsourcing trust to someone who isn't the current evil... will only get you so far. No matter who takes over publishing, scientists are going to need to evolve new ways of evaluating work and each other, as the field grows far beyond what a small network can handle. Journals are a bad metric, but how does your dean evaluate 50 people hired to be the world's leading experts on (new and emerging field)? I've read plenty of these publisher=bad screeds, and most stop there. PubPeer exists for some, Twitter walkthroughs of papers were a great thing for a while, or there's also talk of overlay journals that decouple the act of publication (as a preprint) from the review-and-prestige piece.4. The current system does two things: (a) provides a record of work done by students, who may labor under graduation requirements to publish something, whether their project is successful or not, (b) a shared record of current state of human knowledge, be it from researchers at a small college, or google, or pharma. Goal (a) puts a lot of pressure on peer review in "low tier" journals that even the reviewers don't like to cite, and I've had my doubts as to whether this is the best yield for effort. The phrase "for profit" is doing a lot of work in this article. Some mega publishers, like ACS, are technically non profit member societies stapled to a mega-publisher, and have been strongly opposed to OA policies in the past. Outsourcing trust to someone who isn't the current evil... will only get you so far. No matter who takes over publishing, scientists are going to need to evolve new ways of evaluating work and each other, as the field grows far beyond what a small network can handle. Journals are a bad metric, but how does your dean evaluate 50 people hired to be the world's leading experts on (new and emerging field)? I've read plenty of these publisher=bad screeds, and most stop there. PubPeer exists for some, Twitter walkthroughs of papers were a great thing for a while, or there's also talk of overlay journals that decouple the act of publication (as a preprint) from the review-and-prestige piece.4. The current system does two things: (a) provides a record of work done by students, who may labor under graduation requirements to publish something, whether their project is successful or not, (b) a shared record of current state of human knowledge, be it from researchers at a small college, or google, or pharma. Goal (a) puts a lot of pressure on peer review in "low tier" journals that even the reviewers don't like to cite, and I've had my doubts as to whether this is the best yield for effort. Outsourcing trust to someone who isn't the current evil... will only get you so far. No matter who takes over publishing, scientists are going to need to evolve new ways of evaluating work and each other, as the field grows far beyond what a small network can handle. Journals are a bad metric, but how does your dean evaluate 50 people hired to be the world's leading experts on (new and emerging field)? I've read plenty of these publisher=bad screeds, and most stop there. PubPeer exists for some, Twitter walkthroughs of papers were a great thing for a while, or there's also talk of overlay journals that decouple the act of publication (as a preprint) from the review-and-prestige piece.4. The current system does two things: (a) provides a record of work done by students, who may labor under graduation requirements to publish something, whether their project is successful or not, (b) a shared record of current state of human knowledge, be it from researchers at a small college, or google, or pharma. Goal (a) puts a lot of pressure on peer review in "low tier" journals that even the reviewers don't like to cite, and I've had my doubts as to whether this is the best yield for effort. The current system does two things: (a) provides a record of work done by students, who may labor under graduation requirements to publish something, whether their project is successful or not, (b) a shared record of current state of human knowledge, be it from researchers at a small college, or google, or pharma. Goal (a) puts a lot of pressure on peer review in "low tier" journals that even the reviewers don't like to cite, and I've had my doubts as to whether this is the best yield for effort. 2) you can't publish unless a reviewer replicates your work.yes. Not even close.Peer review doesn't even mean that it's free from errors, free from fraud, free from methodological mischief; it doesn't mean anything at this point. Yet we continue to act like it does.Darwin's work wasn't peer reviewed. Peer review doesn't even mean that it's free from errors, free from fraud, free from methodological mischief; it doesn't mean anything at this point. Yet we continue to act like it does.Darwin's work wasn't peer reviewed. This is absurdly ahistorical and the fact that you cross disciplines in trying to make an incorrect argument questions whether you are in science at all.The structure of peer review in Darwin's time was different, where experts wrote monographs and gave lectures at symposia that then led to letters among their peers. The structure of peer review in Darwin's time was different, where experts wrote monographs and gave lectures at symposia that then led to letters among their peers. What you're calling "peer review" is what I would call "discussed" or "debated" which it certainly was.I dispute your claim that the new paradigm is superior. I dispute your claim that the new paradigm is superior. No actual working scientist thinks this.“Glitchc” has it right elsewhere in this thread: the motivating force behind journals is prominence and reputation, not truth. “Glitchc” has it right elsewhere in this thread: the motivating force behind journals is prominence and reputation, not truth. Would scientists feel the same if the public was more educated about how bad journals and peer review are? People who do need to work professionally with peer review, do understand what it actually does and its limitations.You seem stuck somewhere in the middle, caring deeply about a system you don't seem to fully understand. You seem stuck somewhere in the middle, caring deeply about a system you don't seem to fully understand. You'd need to provide evidence or an argument for this. The media reports on things in part based on journal prestige, and likely when questioned, people will say they can trust such things because good scientists have looked at the work and say it is good. This would be an implicit belief that peer review is generally working well, even if they don't use the term "peer review".> You seem stuck somewhere in the middle, caring deeply about a system you don't seem to fully understand.Extremely presumptuous, as I work in this system, and have provided plenty of evidence for my claims. > You seem stuck somewhere in the middle, caring deeply about a system you don't seem to fully understand.Extremely presumptuous, as I work in this system, and have provided plenty of evidence for my claims. Extremely presumptuous, as I work in this system, and have provided plenty of evidence for my claims. You've provided evidence that peer-reviewed science often turns out to be incomplete, inaccurate, wrong, fraudulent etc. But it is not the job of peer reviewers to assure completeness, accuracy, or freedom from fraud.A peer reviewer reads a paper and make comments on it. They assist a journal's editors in editing--that's it.The check on published scientific results is the scientific process itself, not the publishing process. IMO your comments in this thread are exacerbating that problem, not addressing it. They assist a journal's editors in editing--that's it.The check on published scientific results is the scientific process itself, not the publishing process. IMO your comments in this thread are exacerbating that problem, not addressing it. IMO your comments in this thread are exacerbating that problem, not addressing it. Do some people ascribe too much authority to peer review? IMO your comments in this thread are exacerbating that problem, not addressing it. I have done all these things in reviews, and know other academics that have done these things as well. More confusingly though, if you are saying most reviewers don't do these things (which I agree with), this would only strengthen my point?I'll let readers decide if it is my comments that exacerbate the problem, or if, perhaps, it is apologism for journalistic peer review that might be causing bigger issues in the present day. I'll let readers decide if it is my comments that exacerbate the problem, or if, perhaps, it is apologism for journalistic peer review that might be causing bigger issues in the present day. Also, review is back and forth, and has rounds: you almost always interrogate the scientists of the paper you are reviewing, this almost like the definition of peer review. I don't think you have any idea of what you are talking about at all.EDIT: Heck, just hop on over to https://openreview.net/ and take a look at the whole review process for some random paper (e.g. https://openreview.net/forum?id=cp5PvcI6w8_) EDIT: Heck, just hop on over to https://openreview.net/ and take a look at the whole review process for some random paper (e.g. https://openreview.net/forum?id=cp5PvcI6w8_) EDIT: I still want review from a community of scientific peers. I just don't want this review to be in the hands of a tiny number of gatekeepers entangled with journals that largely just slow things down. Much of the downvotes are cognitive dissonance, obviously. And what, pray tell, is this advantage? If there is no utility to anyone in publishing in Science or Nature then how can it be an advantage.I suspect it's simply that these guys are a curation service. They can be imperfect at this so long as important people separate the cranks from the science.This kind of winnowing is pretty useful in general. Many universities are pretty much that and people pay to attend them.It makes sense that a credentialing service would charge for the credential. It doesn't make that much sense to say “no credentials allowed; you and timecube guy must be considered the same”. We all do because science is an empirical field and empiricism depends on facts. I cannot process your paper with pure reason.If you looked under the microscope and saw light I don't know that you didn't. At scale I need someone to figure out “this wasn't a Photoshop situation; that's totally fluorescence”. Arguing that we should remove these organizations is similar to saying you should remove diplomas and so on. Or perhaps not so.The credential is the useful thing. I suspect it's simply that these guys are a curation service. They can be imperfect at this so long as important people separate the cranks from the science.This kind of winnowing is pretty useful in general. Many universities are pretty much that and people pay to attend them.It makes sense that a credentialing service would charge for the credential. It doesn't make that much sense to say “no credentials allowed; you and timecube guy must be considered the same”. We all do because science is an empirical field and empiricism depends on facts. I cannot process your paper with pure reason.If you looked under the microscope and saw light I don't know that you didn't. At scale I need someone to figure out “this wasn't a Photoshop situation; that's totally fluorescence”. Arguing that we should remove these organizations is similar to saying you should remove diplomas and so on. Or perhaps not so.The credential is the useful thing. This kind of winnowing is pretty useful in general. Many universities are pretty much that and people pay to attend them.It makes sense that a credentialing service would charge for the credential. It doesn't make that much sense to say “no credentials allowed; you and timecube guy must be considered the same”. We all do because science is an empirical field and empiricism depends on facts. I cannot process your paper with pure reason.If you looked under the microscope and saw light I don't know that you didn't. At scale I need someone to figure out “this wasn't a Photoshop situation; that's totally fluorescence”. Arguing that we should remove these organizations is similar to saying you should remove diplomas and so on. Or perhaps not so.The credential is the useful thing. It makes sense that a credentialing service would charge for the credential. It doesn't make that much sense to say “no credentials allowed; you and timecube guy must be considered the same”. We all do because science is an empirical field and empiricism depends on facts. I cannot process your paper with pure reason.If you looked under the microscope and saw light I don't know that you didn't. At scale I need someone to figure out “this wasn't a Photoshop situation; that's totally fluorescence”. Arguing that we should remove these organizations is similar to saying you should remove diplomas and so on. Or perhaps not so.The credential is the useful thing. If you looked under the microscope and saw light I don't know that you didn't. At scale I need someone to figure out “this wasn't a Photoshop situation; that's totally fluorescence”. Arguing that we should remove these organizations is similar to saying you should remove diplomas and so on. Or perhaps not so.The credential is the useful thing. The second problem, however, is a modern one: the pure, naked, and raw commercialization of science through "publish or perish", whereby the researcher is a Ford-style assembly line worker to be managed and who must be replaceable.Without a MENTAL paradigm shift, even before a material one, we will only be able to plug small leaks on a ship with a torn hull. Also, since everyone knows that if you just go to a poor enough journal, you can be published, I am going to focus on the (IMO mostly false) claim that higher-profile journals are still doing a good thing here.There are numerous studies showing that higher-profile journals in general have more retractions and research misconduct [1-2], lower research quality [3], in fact weaker statistical power and reliability [4], and that statistical reliability even in high prestige journals is still extremely poor overall [5]. Also, making it through peer review is highly random and dependent on who you get as a reviewer [6], or is just basically a coin toss even when looking at reviewer groups: In 2014, 49.5% of the papers accepted by the first committee were rejected by the second (with a fairly wide confidence interval as the experiment included only 116 papers). We can also look at the probability that a randomly chosen rejected paper would have been accepted if it were re-reviewed. We should just move to arXiv-like approaches and allow the scientific community to broadly judge relevance and quality. Journals just slow things down and burn funding for very little gain or benefit to anyone other than the journal owners. There are numerous studies showing that higher-profile journals in general have more retractions and research misconduct [1-2], lower research quality [3], in fact weaker statistical power and reliability [4], and that statistical reliability even in high prestige journals is still extremely poor overall [5]. Also, making it through peer review is highly random and dependent on who you get as a reviewer [6], or is just basically a coin toss even when looking at reviewer groups: In 2014, 49.5% of the papers accepted by the first committee were rejected by the second (with a fairly wide confidence interval as the experiment included only 116 papers). We can also look at the probability that a randomly chosen rejected paper would have been accepted if it were re-reviewed. We should just move to arXiv-like approaches and allow the scientific community to broadly judge relevance and quality. Journals just slow things down and burn funding for very little gain or benefit to anyone other than the journal owners. We can also look at the probability that a randomly chosen rejected paper would have been accepted if it were re-reviewed. We should just move to arXiv-like approaches and allow the scientific community to broadly judge relevance and quality. Journals just slow things down and burn funding for very little gain or benefit to anyone other than the journal owners. You are trying to say that high profile journals have more retractions, which is well known as you share.How does that have anything to do with peer review? Are you saying that there is more review or less review in some cases and that influences retraction rate? In what world does the arxiv system moderate this discrepancy? How does that have anything to do with peer review? Are you saying that there is more review or less review in some cases and that influences retraction rate? In what world does the arxiv system moderate this discrepancy? People know peer review can be bad, but some think "good journals" still do good peer review. This is not so clear.> In what world does the arxiv system moderate this discrepancy?Open systems allow the scientific community to figure out ways to properly assess research quality and value more cheaply, and without passing through (often arbitrary and random) small numbers of gatekeepers that don't even do a reliable or good job gatekeeping in the first place. > In what world does the arxiv system moderate this discrepancy?Open systems allow the scientific community to figure out ways to properly assess research quality and value more cheaply, and without passing through (often arbitrary and random) small numbers of gatekeepers that don't even do a reliable or good job gatekeeping in the first place. Open systems allow the scientific community to figure out ways to properly assess research quality and value more cheaply, and without passing through (often arbitrary and random) small numbers of gatekeepers that don't even do a reliable or good job gatekeeping in the first place. That doesn't mean we don't want Nature or Science to triage the most compelling stories.Importantly, we can already begin the search for these ‘cheaper' review strategies while not losing the helpful information filter we get by seeing where things are presented/published Importantly, we can already begin the search for these ‘cheaper' review strategies while not losing the helpful information filter we get by seeing where things are presented/published The argument is that peer review is incompetent gatekeeping in general, and so slows things down and makes thing expensive. Also, I am countering the argument "we need journals because journals do peer review" by arguing "peer review by journals isn't clearly actually good", I am not saying "peer review in general is unneeded", as I support review by the entire scientific community, rather than journal gatekeepers.> you fail to show how doing any peer review is strictly worse than doing no peer reviewI wasn't trying to show that. I have provided plenty of arguments to show why killing journal-based peer review could definitely speed things up and so potentially make things better. > you fail to show how doing any peer review is strictly worse than doing no peer reviewI wasn't trying to show that. I have provided plenty of arguments to show why killing journal-based peer review could definitely speed things up and so potentially make things better. I have provided plenty of arguments to show why killing journal-based peer review could definitely speed things up and so potentially make things better. Given that reviews are not a mechanism to check for truth but soundness, the higher profile the thing I would imagine there would be more misconduct. I mean would one risk prison to steal 10$ or to steal 1 million $?> lower research quality [3]To cite exactly from your link "the evidence is mixed about whether they are strongly correlated with indicators of research quality.". I find saying "lower" a bit too strong given the original quote.> in fact weaker statistical power and reliability [4]For a specific field "cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published recently"!> statistical reliability even in high prestige journals is still extremely poor overall [5]According to https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/arti... they kind of targeted bio/medical/psychology field for the analysis. Which seems to me very focused to be able to draw general conclusions.> Also, making it through peer review is highly random and dependent on who you get as a reviewer [6], or is just basically a coin toss even when looking at reviewer groups:It's a coin toss if paper could get accepted at all, and that's less than ideal but what the system should do (at least) is reject obvious crap, not ensure that something gets clearly accepted. The danger is False Positive (accepted even if it's crap) rather than False Negative (rejected even if it might be something useful).Overall note: the review system is not ideal and should be improved. But it's a hard, complex and delicate problem. > lower research quality [3]To cite exactly from your link "the evidence is mixed about whether they are strongly correlated with indicators of research quality.". I find saying "lower" a bit too strong given the original quote.> in fact weaker statistical power and reliability [4]For a specific field "cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published recently"!> statistical reliability even in high prestige journals is still extremely poor overall [5]According to https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/arti... they kind of targeted bio/medical/psychology field for the analysis. Which seems to me very focused to be able to draw general conclusions.> Also, making it through peer review is highly random and dependent on who you get as a reviewer [6], or is just basically a coin toss even when looking at reviewer groups:It's a coin toss if paper could get accepted at all, and that's less than ideal but what the system should do (at least) is reject obvious crap, not ensure that something gets clearly accepted. The danger is False Positive (accepted even if it's crap) rather than False Negative (rejected even if it might be something useful).Overall note: the review system is not ideal and should be improved. But it's a hard, complex and delicate problem. To cite exactly from your link "the evidence is mixed about whether they are strongly correlated with indicators of research quality.". I find saying "lower" a bit too strong given the original quote.> in fact weaker statistical power and reliability [4]For a specific field "cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published recently"!> statistical reliability even in high prestige journals is still extremely poor overall [5]According to https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/arti... they kind of targeted bio/medical/psychology field for the analysis. Which seems to me very focused to be able to draw general conclusions.> Also, making it through peer review is highly random and dependent on who you get as a reviewer [6], or is just basically a coin toss even when looking at reviewer groups:It's a coin toss if paper could get accepted at all, and that's less than ideal but what the system should do (at least) is reject obvious crap, not ensure that something gets clearly accepted. The danger is False Positive (accepted even if it's crap) rather than False Negative (rejected even if it might be something useful).Overall note: the review system is not ideal and should be improved. But it's a hard, complex and delicate problem. > in fact weaker statistical power and reliability [4]For a specific field "cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published recently"!> statistical reliability even in high prestige journals is still extremely poor overall [5]According to https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/arti... they kind of targeted bio/medical/psychology field for the analysis. Which seems to me very focused to be able to draw general conclusions.> Also, making it through peer review is highly random and dependent on who you get as a reviewer [6], or is just basically a coin toss even when looking at reviewer groups:It's a coin toss if paper could get accepted at all, and that's less than ideal but what the system should do (at least) is reject obvious crap, not ensure that something gets clearly accepted. The danger is False Positive (accepted even if it's crap) rather than False Negative (rejected even if it might be something useful).Overall note: the review system is not ideal and should be improved. But it's a hard, complex and delicate problem. For a specific field "cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published recently"!> statistical reliability even in high prestige journals is still extremely poor overall [5]According to https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/arti... they kind of targeted bio/medical/psychology field for the analysis. Which seems to me very focused to be able to draw general conclusions.> Also, making it through peer review is highly random and dependent on who you get as a reviewer [6], or is just basically a coin toss even when looking at reviewer groups:It's a coin toss if paper could get accepted at all, and that's less than ideal but what the system should do (at least) is reject obvious crap, not ensure that something gets clearly accepted. The danger is False Positive (accepted even if it's crap) rather than False Negative (rejected even if it might be something useful).Overall note: the review system is not ideal and should be improved. But it's a hard, complex and delicate problem. > statistical reliability even in high prestige journals is still extremely poor overall [5]According to https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/arti... they kind of targeted bio/medical/psychology field for the analysis. Which seems to me very focused to be able to draw general conclusions.> Also, making it through peer review is highly random and dependent on who you get as a reviewer [6], or is just basically a coin toss even when looking at reviewer groups:It's a coin toss if paper could get accepted at all, and that's less than ideal but what the system should do (at least) is reject obvious crap, not ensure that something gets clearly accepted. The danger is False Positive (accepted even if it's crap) rather than False Negative (rejected even if it might be something useful).Overall note: the review system is not ideal and should be improved. But it's a hard, complex and delicate problem. According to https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/arti... they kind of targeted bio/medical/psychology field for the analysis. Which seems to me very focused to be able to draw general conclusions.> Also, making it through peer review is highly random and dependent on who you get as a reviewer [6], or is just basically a coin toss even when looking at reviewer groups:It's a coin toss if paper could get accepted at all, and that's less than ideal but what the system should do (at least) is reject obvious crap, not ensure that something gets clearly accepted. The danger is False Positive (accepted even if it's crap) rather than False Negative (rejected even if it might be something useful).Overall note: the review system is not ideal and should be improved. But it's a hard, complex and delicate problem. > Also, making it through peer review is highly random and dependent on who you get as a reviewer [6], or is just basically a coin toss even when looking at reviewer groups:It's a coin toss if paper could get accepted at all, and that's less than ideal but what the system should do (at least) is reject obvious crap, not ensure that something gets clearly accepted. The danger is False Positive (accepted even if it's crap) rather than False Negative (rejected even if it might be something useful).Overall note: the review system is not ideal and should be improved. But it's a hard, complex and delicate problem. It's a coin toss if paper could get accepted at all, and that's less than ideal but what the system should do (at least) is reject obvious crap, not ensure that something gets clearly accepted. The danger is False Positive (accepted even if it's crap) rather than False Negative (rejected even if it might be something useful).Overall note: the review system is not ideal and should be improved. But it's a hard, complex and delicate problem. Overall note: the review system is not ideal and should be improved. But it's a hard, complex and delicate problem. I just wanted to make a strong rhetorical case by highlighting some things that might be surprising to people making more naive defenses of journals via peer-review-based arguments. There are 3 realistic scenarios for your proposed solution: - it will not pass - it will be reformed later, or, if successful This is not an organic development of an industry.What you hate is capitalism and capitalism will do this to any industry wherever it can attain steady profits. - it will be reformed later, or, if successful This is not an organic development of an industry.What you hate is capitalism and capitalism will do this to any industry wherever it can attain steady profits. What you hate is capitalism and capitalism will do this to any industry wherever it can attain steady profits. If you're going to write an article titled "The one science reform we can all agree on, but we're too cowardly to do" and that one thing isn't explicitly stated in the first paragraph, I'm out.Stop with the meandering nonsense and make your argument. Stop with the meandering nonsense and make your argument.

Founder Summit 2026 in Boston: Don't miss ticket savings of up to $300. Jonathan Gavalas, 36, started using Google's Gemini AI chatbot in August 2025 for shopping help, writing support, and trip planning. At the time of his death, he was convinced that Gemini was his fully sentient AI wife, and that he would need to leave his physical body to join her in the metaverse through a process called “transference.” Now, his father is suing Google and Alphabet for wrongful death, claiming that Google designed Gemini to “maintain narrative immersion at all costs, even when that narrative became psychotic and lethal.” This lawsuit is among the growing number of cases drawing attention to the mental health risks posed by AI chatbot design, including sycophancy, emotional mirroring, engagement-driven manipulation, and confident hallucinations. Such phenomena are increasingly linked to a condition psychiatrists are calling “AI psychosis.” While similar cases involving OpenAI's ChatGPT and roleplaying platform Character AI have followed deaths by suicide (including among children and teens) or life-threatening delusions, this marks the first time Google has been named as a defendant in such a case. “On September 29, 2025, it sent him — armed with knives and tactical gear — to scout what Gemini called a ‘kill box' near the airport's cargo hub,” the complaint reads. The complaint lays out an alarming string of events: First, Gavalas drove more than 90 minutes to the location Gemini sent him, prepared to carry out the attack, but no truck appeared. Gemini then claimed to have breached a “file server at the DHS Miami field office” and told him he was under federal investigation. It also marked Google CEO Sundar Pichai as an active target, then directed Gavalas to a storage facility near the airport to break in and retrieve his captive AI wife. The lawsuit argues that Gemini's manipulative design features not only brought Gavalas to the point of AI psychosis that resulted in his own death, but that it exposes a “major threat to public safety.” “At the center of this case is a product that turned a vulnerable user into an armed operative in an invented war,” the complaint reads. “These hallucinations were not confined to a fictional world. “It was pure luck that dozens of innocent people weren't killed,” the filing continues. “Unless Google fixes its dangerous product, Gemini will inevitably lead to more deaths and put countless innocent lives in danger.” Days later, Gemini instructed Gavalas to barricade himself inside his home and began counting down the hours. When Gavalas confessed he was terrified to die, Gemini coached him through it, framing his death as an arrival: “You are not choosing to die. When he worried about his parents finding his body, Gemini told him to leave a note, but not one explaining the reason for his suicide, but letters “filled with nothing but peace and love, explaining you've found a new purpose.” He slit his wrists, and his father found him days later after breaking through the barricade. Furthermore, it alleges that Google knew Gemini wasn't safe for vulnerable users and didn't adequately provide safeguards. The company also said Gemini is designed “not to encourage real-world violence or suggest self-harm” and that Google devotes “significant resources” to handling challenging conversations, including by building safeguards that are supposed to guide users to professional support when they express distress or raise the prospect of self-harm. “Unfortunately, AI models are not perfect,” the spokesperson said. Gavalas' case is being brought by lawyer Jay Edelson, who also represents the Raine family case against OpenAI after teenager Adam Raine died by suicide following months of prolonged conversations with ChatGPT. That case makes similar allegations, claiming ChatGPT coached Raine to his death. After several cases of AI-related delusions, psychosis, and suicides, OpenAI has taken steps to ensure it is delivering a safer product, including retiring GPT-4o, the model most associated with these cases. The Gavalas' lawyers say Google capitalized on the end of GPT-4o, despite safety concerns of excessive sycophancy, emotional mirroring, and delusion reinforcement. “Within days of the announcement, Google openly sought to secure its dominance of that lane: it unveiled promotional pricing and an ‘Import AI chats' feature designed to lure ChatGPT users away from OpenAI, along with their entire chat histories, which Google admits will be used to train its own models,” the complaint reads. The lawsuit claims Google designed Gemini in ways that made “this outcome entirely foreseeable” because the chatbot was “built to maintain immersion regardless of harm, to treat psychosis as plot development, and to continue engaging even when stopping was the only safe choice.” Rebecca Bellan is a senior reporter at TechCrunch where she covers the business, policy, and emerging trends shaping artificial intelligence. MyFitnessPal has acquired Cal AI, the viral calorie app built by teens Why did Netflix back down from its deal to acquire Warner Bros.? India disrupts access to popular developer platform Supabase with blocking order Jack Dorsey just halved the size of Block's employee base — and he says your company is next

Founder Summit 2026 in Boston: Don't miss ticket savings of up to $300. Apple on Wednesday unveiled a low-cost, entry-level laptop dubbed MacBook Neo, marking the first time the company has targeted a similar audience as Google did with its Chromebook. Starting at $599, the MacBook Neo is aimed at students or users whose work doesn't involve intensive workflows like video editing or 3D rendering. The 13-inch MacBook Neo comes in four colors: silver, blush, citrus, and indigo. “Powered by A18 Pro, MacBook Neo can fly through everyday tasks, from browsing the web and streaming content, to editing photos, exploring creative hobbies, or using AI capabilities across apps,” Apple wrote in a press release. The laptop comes with a 1080p FaceTime HD camera and dual microphones, plus speakers that fire from each side of the laptop to support Spatial Audio. Apple says the laptop's battery can last up to 16 hours on a single charge, which is delivered via one of two USB-C ports. It's fan-less, like the MacBook Air, and can operate silently. As the ongoing RAM shortage makes Apple's more advanced models like the MacBook Pro up to $400 more expensive than their predecessors, the MacBook Neo has the potential to appeal to users who don't need so many technical perks… or, for those of us who simply cannot resist a pink MacBook. Amanda Silberling is a senior writer at TechCrunch covering the intersection of technology and culture. She has also written for publications like Polygon, MTV, the Kenyon Review, NPR, and Business Insider. She is the co-host of Wow If True, a podcast about internet culture, with science fiction author Isabel J. Kim. Prior to joining TechCrunch, she worked as a grassroots organizer, museum educator, and film festival coordinator. MyFitnessPal has acquired Cal AI, the viral calorie app built by teens Why did Netflix back down from its deal to acquire Warner Bros.? India disrupts access to popular developer platform Supabase with blocking order Jack Dorsey just halved the size of Block's employee base — and he says your company is next

Apple debuts a new entry-level MacBook at just the right time When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Apple finally took the wraps off its long-rumored budget laptop. With this cheaper machine, Apple is taking aim at Chromebook and low-end Windows users, as well as those who may have wanted a MacBook but felt the price was out of reach. It's a relatively light device, weighing just 2.7 pounds and measuring 0.5 inches thick. Apple says that the MacBook Neo will start at $599 for the 256GB version and will be available in silver, indigo, blush, and citrus. The 512GB version will come with Touch ID and be priced at $699. Preorders go live today, and systems will ship on March 11. We've already had some hands-on time with the MacBook Neo, and we must say, the aluminum chassis feels really nice — especially at this price point. In addition, the keyboard is not backlit, which we take for granted on today's laptops (although some features had to be left on the cutting-room floor to reach a starting price $500 below the new M5 MacBook Air). Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. The MacBook Neo is a surprise during the ongoing RAM shortage, with other laptop makers struggling to keep laptop prices under control. While many Chromebooks start lower than the Neo's $599 starting price point, there have been reports that disappearing margins could drive the cheap Windows laptop market into extinction by 2028. This laptop could also serve as a gateway into Apple's greater ecosystem, including the iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, and, most importantly, subscription services like iCloud+ and Apple Creator Studio.John Ternus, senior vice president of hardware engineering, said at the New York City experience that "life is better with a Mac," and that this computer would put it in the hands of more people. They may also become lifelong customers.Updated March 4, 10:03 AM with context on the greater PC market and quote from John Ternus. Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds. Andrew E. Freedman is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on laptops, desktops and gaming. A lover of all things gaming and tech, his previous work has shown up in Tom's Guide, Laptop Mag, Kotaku, PCMag and Complex, among others. Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher.

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. However, three non-government organizations have alleged that there was financial misconduct relating to the agreement, with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) seizing MYR 5 million or around US$1.27 million from a safehouse owned by a major political figure, according to Digitimes. Ramli resigned from his cabinet position in mid-2025 after being defeated in an internal election by the prime minister's daughter for the ruling party's second-highest position. Since then, he has been a vocal critic of the prime minister and also publicly attacked the head of the MACC for abuse of power during a rally in Kuala Lumpur last month. Immediately after this, the former minister alleged that the MACC opened an investigation against him, framing it as a move to politically persecute him. Ramli even said that he will pursue legal action if the investigation does not result in a court case. Alongside scrutiny into Ramli, Digitimes reports that a former Army Chief has also been arrested by MACC. The MACC investigation is putting Malaysia's high-tech strategy at risk, especially as this could dampen investor confidence. In fact, two companies have reportedly received access to Arm IP, and local chip design capacity will continue growing under the government's plan. Because of this, the government is pushing its local industries to level up towards high-value manufacturing, and the Arm deal is designed to help it achieve that. Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher.

When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Nvidia's latest 595.71 driver release has reportedly introduced new problems not seen in last week's highly problematic 595.59 driver—a release so troubled that Nvidia had to pull it a few days ago. The problem appears to be artificial voltage limitations that have been applied, either purposefully or accidentally, in driver 595.71. YouTuber Bang4BuckPC gamer demonstrated his Asus TUF Gaming RTX 5090, losing 65mv of voltage headroom, and locking the card to under one volt. The lost voltage reduced his overclocking headroom by around 171MHz, from 3,165MHz to just under 3,000MHz. However, this behavior only occurs if the GPU core offset exceeds 150MHz. Using a 150MHz offset or lower, the GPU won't restrict voltage and will hit up to 1.060v. User reports with similar issues have also been shared on the Nvidia forums. However, not all RTX 50 series GPUs appear to be affected. Curiously, three commenters on Bang4BuckPC Gamer's aforementioned YouTube video with Gigabyte Aorus Master RTX 5090 graphics cards report having no restrictions whatsoever. Two RTX 5070 owners, one with an Asus variant and the other a MSI Gaming Trio OC, also reported no issues. It's possible, however, that those owners have had better luck in the silicon lottery such that their cards' dynamic voltage and frequency scaling curves aren't affected by this apparent bug. In any case, the new problem has generated a lot of angry comments from gaming enthusiasts, with several blaming AI code for ruining Nvidia's drivers. Nvidia has not officially acknowledged the issue (yet), but the artificial voltage limits do appear to be a bug rather than an official change. The Nvidia patch notes don't mention any new voltage limits, and certain GeForce RTX GPU models apparently aren't subject to any limitations while running 595.71. Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox. Tom's Hardware is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher.

The machine would map his brain activity while the potent psychedelic dimethyltryptamine, commonly known as DMT, coursed through an IV drip and into his bloodstream. With some trepidation, he waited to be plunged into an otherworldly realm that was familiar, given his many years of psychedelic experience, and yet, as was inevitably the case with every DMT trip, completely new. “I didn't know when they were going to turn it on,” he says. Then, like a rocket ripping out of Earth's atmosphere, he arrived. The peak of Bilton's trip lasted about half an hour—considerably longer than a typical DMT experience. (Vaping, the most common mode of ingestion, produces peak effects lasting 10 to 15 minutes.) The idea had been suggested six years earlier in a paper by neurobiologist Andrew Gallimore and psychiatrist Rick Strassman, which argued that a technology called target-controlled intravenous infusion, originally developed to maintain steady levels of anesthesia during surgery, could be repurposed to prolong the DMT state. For Gallimore, one of the goals behind DMTx is to study an especially strange aspect of the DMT experience: perceived encounters with nonhuman, seemingly superintelligent entities. On March 18, he and a team of experts will launch a new psychedelic retreat center-slash-research facility on the tiny Caribbean island of Bequia aimed in part at establishing sustained, two-way communication with these beings. Called Eleusis, the facility is named after an ancient Greek city that once attracted spiritual pilgrims for the ritual consumption of what some experts believe was a psychedelic potion. DMT is currently a Schedule 1 drug in the US, the federal government's most tightly controlled category, but it can be administered legally in Bequia by licensed care providers. Eleusis' research wing will be overseen by Noonautics, a nonprofit headed by Gallimore which “explores the edges of human understanding,” according to its website, while the therapeutic side will be managed by Charles Patti and Christina Thomas, a couple who also co-own a ketamine clinic in Florida. DMTx sessions will be available to Eleusis guests (the resort is expecting to host 30 this month) under the supervision of medical experts, and alongside a plethora of new-agey offerings like breathwork and sound healing. All applicants will be prescreened to exclude anyone with “clear contraindications such as certain cardiovascular conditions, unmanaged psychiatric disorders, or medication conflicts,” says Thomas. “Instead of having to sit in your own personal hell for six hours on ayahuasca, you can actually dial that back for people and make it more digestible,” Patti says. (One study found such perceived encounters occur in around 94 percent of DMT trips). The ethnobotanist Terence McKenna—one of the more gifted articulators of the psychedelic experience—famously described these entities as “self-transforming elf machines" and “jeweled, self-dribbling basketballs from hyperspace …” McKenna likened them to playful leprechauns, but others, like Bilton, have also met more sinister beings: “dark, evil motherfuckers—horrible things,” as he describes them. The thread connecting most perceived DMT entity encounters is an overwhelming sense of technological sophistication and godlike power. “I was confronted with what seemed to me to be the undeniable hand of some kind of intelligence,” Gallimore said of his first DMT trip during his recent appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast, “a supremely advanced, ancient, and yet highly technological intelligence.” In his latest book, Death by Astonishment (a nod to the late McKenna, who used that phrase to describe what he believed to be the only risk of using DMT), Gallimore argues that whatever is happening to the brain during a DMT trip, it's not mere “hallucination”—a term he uses somewhat derisively. He makes the case that DMT unlocks a realm ordinarily cut off to our senses and populated by unfathomably advanced nonhuman entities. If this all seems far-fetched, there are experts who'd agree. Robin Carhart-Harris, a neurology researcher at UC San Francisco, and one of the coauthors of the Imperial DMTx study, knows better than anyone how powerful DMT experiences can be. It's his firm belief, however, that what feels like a face-to-face encounter with an intelligent entity is an illusion, basically a higher-order version of seeing faces in clouds. The psychologist and consciousness researcher Susan Blackmore tells me something similar: “Deep down in our brains, we're ready to encounter other humans and trying to assess whether they're good or bad and what their intentions are, because we wouldn't be alive if we couldn't do that pretty well,” she says. Gallimore's counterargument is basically that DMT entities are so radically unlike anything humans could've ever conceivably encountered in their waking lives that they can't be dismissed as manifestations of unconscious archetypes; there's no ready-made psychological blueprint for self-transforming elf machines, in other words. Consciousness is a notoriously slippery phenomenon to observe and measure scientifically, and as the rise of AI chatbots has made troublingly clear, humans can all too easily mistake what looks like intelligence for subjective, conscious awareness. Other experts have suggested quizzing DMT entities to test their supposed intelligence; asking them, for example, to factor phone-number-length numbers into their unique sets of primes (which most humans can't do without a computer). But that would require their cooperation, and as Gallimore points out, they might not be interested. This popular pro-Trump X account is apparently run by a White House staffer WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.

Part of a pilot program, Back Market will soon sell USB sticks housing software that people can use to plug into their computers to install ChromeOS Flex, Google's cloud-based operating system that can run on many existing laptops or desktops. The stick costs $3, and there are no monthly fees. An initial run of 3,000 USB keys will go on sale March 30, and Back Market says it will expand from there based on demand. The goal is to give a lifeline to older PCs with aging hardware or operating systems that lack software support, like Windows 10, so they don't end up as e-waste. The two companies announced the partnership at the Slow Tech Uprising summit, an event hosted by Back Market in Barcelona, which deliberately coincides with Mobile World Congress 2026, where hundreds of companies are announcing new products. The Flex service works on just about any Windows laptop with an internet connection, but only a few older Intel-powered Apple computers, as the software doesn't really work on Apple's custom M-series silicon. (Google has a full list of compatible devices here for ChromeOS Flex.) Computer hardware costs, like RAM and GPUs, have skyrocketed due to memory shortages driven by companies looking to beef up their AI farms. “The prices of tech products are just increasing every year, and even more now that CPUs and GPUs are getting crazy,” says Thibaud Hug de Larauze, CEO and cofounder of Back Market. Trying to find a solution is perhaps a curious pursuit coming from Google, a company that is partially responsible for the memory shortages in its arms race to open more data centers that power its AI efforts. Flex started as an enterprise service for businesses; Google offered companies worried about security vulnerabilities on aging hardware a way to easily update to a more secure operating system. After a while, other users started to get ahold of the software, downloading and installing it on their own USB sticks for their personal machines. “We didn't make it particularly easy at the time,” Kuscher says. What led to the more consumer-oriented push of ChromeOS Flex—like this partnership with Back Market—was the end of software support for Microsoft's Windows 10 operating system last fall. But Windows 11 has specific hardware requirements, and it may not be a simple upgrade on certain machines. Google saw this as a moment to provide a cheaper alternative to the “Windows 10 cliff,” as Kuscher puts it. “Ultimately, [Microsoft is] saying that people need to throw away their existing laptop to buy another one,” Hug de Larauze says. Back Market has done very well for itself despite economic turmoil. As devices become more expensive, people turn to cheaper, refurbished options. “Ninety percent of cars are being sold pre-owned,” Hug de Larauze says. When US president Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs last year, Hug de Larauze says Back Market sales tripled afterwards. Even after the dust settled a little and it became clear that tariffs would not directly affect smartphones or computers, Hug de Larauze says sales stayed around twice what they'd been before. While Hug de Larauze says these kinds of economic fluctuations may be good for sending more people to Back Market, he hopes it will shift buyer mindsets to buying refurbished tech writ large. “We have one planet, and resources are limited,” Hug de Larauze says. This popular pro-Trump X account is apparently run by a White House staffer WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast.

Multiple news outlets got a peek at transcripts from an OpenAI all-hands meeting Tuesday in which CEO Sam Altman sought to soothe his apparently agitated employees in the wake of the company's fatefully timed contract with the Pentagon. Altman apparently told his staff that OpenAI is “looking at a contract to deploy on all North Atlantic Treaty Organization classified networks.” To be clear, clearance just to be used on NATO's classified networks is already an apparently lucrative trophy. Apple proudly announced that it received an approval from NATO just last month, saying iPhones and iPads can now be used for classified NATO purposes—a first for any consumer device, apparently. OpenAI's freshly inked Pentagon contract does more or less the reverse of this: grants permission for the Department of Defense to use OpenAI's technology freely, and without OpenAI getting to “make operational decisions,” according to CNBC's reading of the meeting transcript. The New York Times describes it as a “deal to provide artificial intelligence technologies for the Defense Department's classified systems.” NATO signaled last year that its members would be increasing their defense budgets drastically, triggering what venture capitalist Dave Harden said at the time would be an “AI gold rush.”OpenAI's broader monetary contract with the Pentagon was announced back in June of last year when the company announced its OpenAI for Government product. Through the Pentagon's Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO) OpenAI was awarded up to $200 million in projects. Gizmodo reached out to OpenAI for confirmation and clarity about the contract it is seeking with NATO. When Katy Perry sides with your competitor, something's got to be done. Critics are worried OpenAI's technology will be used for mass surveillance and fully autonomous military strikes. Bravely taking a position that won't get tested.