AI, three at a time · read · watch · listen

Tag

arxiv

4 reads

The Economist · 2026-10-20 2026-10-23-w2

AI and scientific paperwork: productivity boon or slop flood

Grants are the version of this problem with no checker at all, which is why the Economist piece matters beside the code stories. A typical application takes about 34 days and succeeds about 20% of the time, so a researcher cutting a day a week to 45 minutes still loses most rounds once rivals do the same. Fabricated citations in 2.5m biomedical papers rose 12-fold to about 0.5%, and ICML submissions doubled to 24,000, with the cost landing on reviewers. Where Postgres has committers and PHP has maintainers, science has reader attention, and no mechanical test to ration it. Triage and digest agents start to look less like conveniences and more like core infrastructure.

arXiv 2026-10-20-2

Can Theoretical Physics Research Benefit from Language Agents?

The physics-agents paper names its promising uses (quantum error-correcting code search, Mathematica-verified constructions, proof checking), and each one has an external checker. The weak spots, taste and choice of approximation, have none, and the paper's two worked failures, reusing 'H' after a Jordan-Wigner transform and picking a path at random on a fork, are ambiguity errors. Rowspace shows the checker can be built by hand; this paper says where to build the next one.

The Economist 2026-10-20-3

AI and scientific paperwork: productivity boon or slop flood

Grant writing is the case with no checker at all. A typical application takes about 34 days and succeeds about 20% of the time, so one researcher cutting a day a week to 45 minutes still loses most rounds once rivals do the same. Fabricated citations across 2.5m biomedical papers rose 12-fold to about 0.5%, and ICML submissions doubled to 24,000. The cost lands on reviewers, and effort stops working as a signal of seriousness.

arXiv 2026-10-17-2

Agentic Reward Modeling: Verifying GUI Agent via Progressive Trajectory-Grounded Interaction

VAGEN treats verification as an agent job: read the trajectory first, then probe state only where evidence is thin. On OSWorld-Verified with a Sonnet actor, the same model checks tasks at 83.1% success in 17.4 steps versus 55.9% in 28.5 steps when it does them, and it hits 94.6 F1 against ProRe's 90.4. That is the validator Rieseberg says ambition depends on, and it works because it can touch the environment. The Postgres delay is what a verifier this effective does to a release schedule.