Panorama made a stupid editing mistake. But compare this to the deliberate and systemic attempt, sustained across years, to ensure that BBC output aligns ever more closely to the demands of economic power. Against your straw of bias, I raise you a haystack.

Fale evidence of intense p-hacking but not false evidence of evidenc👍

yes, most of experimental social psychology is not social, but it was sold as having important real world implications by people like you. Take responsibility and do better. Trying to deflect criticism just shows the low credibility of "so called" social psychologists.

Mostly true, but not entirely. There was p-hacking in early Greewald work on changing IA (Dasgupta) or showing that implicit self-esteem predicts things, but yes, no real criterion validity ever.

You don't understand how it works. AI can keep slop out.
Here is a real example. I use AI to grade reflection papers. I also asked it to pick the best 3. Were they the best 3? Maybe not, but they were good and I didn't have to read 100 sloppy and maybe AI generated ones.

Also, why not post it without human review and then readers can flag papers and they can be removed.
Anyhow, all of this is not so important. People can post and AI will find what is useful no matter whether it is on a preprint server or not.

I don't think it has been used yet, but I know that AI is pretty good at understanding a research paper and can be trained to evaluate it given a set of criteria. If an AI written paper passes the test, it may actually be a good paper, even if it was written by AI.

What is their argument? Anyhow, this is silly. AI is legal steroids and you can use them or not, but don't complain if those who is it outperform you. 😭