Given the dysfunctionality of the science community due to pressure to "publish or perish" combined with a wave of p-hacking, I'm not sure there is actually muc

Given the dysfunctionality of the science community due to pressure to "publish or perish" combined with a wave of p-hacking, I'm not sure there is actually much useful information contained in the whole of the literature at present. No matter how optimized and clever the AI, more than half of the "facts" it was trained on are false. I see two possible outcomes: 1) It could learn enough to see through this and actually turn out useful 2) more likely, it will learn the wrong things, and prove unproductive, except as a way to generate plausible papers to further pollute the literature.