I don't think the AI ethics dudes corrupted the field specifically, they tend to be on the more reasonable side. But I generally agree. I've worked in philosop

I don't think the AI ethics dudes corrupted the field specifically, they tend to be on the more reasonable side. But I generally agree. I've worked in philosophy for 30 years, half of those post-PhD, and the field is getting worse and worse. I've seen people rise to the top who are, frankly speaking, fairly dumb and often not even well-read, but have published a lot of books (there is almost no peer reviewing on books) and articles in bad journals. There are also certain topics you simply cannot work on unless you're fulfilling certain dogmatic expectations. However, I must add, in all fairness, that philosophy has some of the highest standards in the humanities and related disciplines are much worse. It's true that once you have established a line of study you just can't get rid of it any more. For example, someone started Argumentation Studies at our university, which is definitely a pseudo-science, and it's going to stay there forever, bound to spoil generations of students and agitate them against STEM fields. To get back to the original topic, however, I can't see any possible future in which AI reviewing wouldn't make the situation worse in the humanities than it already is.