Not that I disagree with your numbers, but do you have any sources for your numbers of paper mills doubling output every 1.5 years vs real research doubling every 15 years?

this is not a issue created by AI or paper mil, it's created by unhealthy review system. Don't blame AI!

Is that real research or fake research?

> So what comes next?

Since you provided a source for your numbers, I'll bite. Formalize results into mechanical proofs that can be verified by computers so that we build a library of computer proofs. You can't bullshit a computer.

I'm not sure how it would work for statistical results, but defining a formalized standard might be a good first step for deriving numbers from raw data instead of relying on the authors to calculate the statistics themselves.

> This is a huge problem because scientific literature is upstream of everything: drug discovery, clinical guidelines, and increasingly, AI training data.

Paper published in bad journals are simply ignored by serious researchers, including drug discovery and clinical guidelines.

I'm not sure about AI training, but if they don't they will have soon a nasty surprise and will have to reinvent impact factor, h-index and a few additional stupid metrics that everyone use to try to ignore all the crap that is published in bad journals (and no so bad journals).