Hacker News Reader

Depends how we implement it. We could make bad science way faster. ChatGPT paper spam is already a thing, and their authors don't care about quality

What tasks being automated will make research more epistemologically sound?

mainly, if a study turns out to be flawed, other studies based on it could be "revoked" automatically.

That wold require automating reproductibility or requestin and analysing datasets that are not provided.

1) they could in theory be provided 2) not necessarily: it's a matter of authority, that when ceases to exist, it ripples

Edit: to an extent it applies to journalism. Nowadays, at best, you have citations that turn out to be fake and seldom who cites them gets updated

Sounds like a plan. I think the ERROR project is doing exactly that.