Published papers, just like accounting records, are immutable artifacts. People need to be able to say, "In Arneson & Dijksterhuis 2014, the figure given for the solanine concentration in eggplants is an order of magnitude too high because of a typographical error," or, "In Arneson & Dijksterhuis 2014, the figure given for the solanine concentration in eggplants is correct to within 25% and does not contain a typographical error," and for other people to be able to verify that. "Just replac[ing] the document on the web server" is considered serious academic misconduct, among other things because you might be introducing errors into previously correct published work that others had referenced. For this case, torrents' immutability is a feature, not a bug.
In 01994 the general population didn't know how to use the internet, but it was already very useful for researchers. Software improved over time to simplify using it.
What benefit would there be? The benefit would be that it prevents AI bots from destroying Open Access.
how do you deal with retractions? how do you deal with academic/research conduct so egregious that all previous versions of a retracted paper need to be edited with “RETRACTED” in big red letters over all the text on every page of the paper? just to make sure no-one ever accidentally reads one page and thinks it is a legitimate source of information.
immutability doesn’t stop academic misconduct. in this specific egregious example it would enable serious harm to continue until every peer updates to the new versions. and there is no guarantee that happens.
the lancet, with their mutable web server hosted versions, were able to edit it and stick RETRACTED in big red letters all over the thing immediately [0]. the ability to edit due to misconduct is guaranteed.
like, i’m all for anything that stops OpenAI spamming web servers, or more generally anything that gets in their way. but there isn’t a perfect technical solution. torrents don’t solve the problem perfectly, they bring new trade offs.
that’s what i’m trying to help you see here. it’s mostly shades of grey.
[0]: by immediate, i mean “once they finally made the decision to retract it waaaaaaaaaay later than they should have”. like, the update was immediate. not the paper was immediately retracted on publication.
In 01994 the general population didn't know how to use the internet, but it was already very useful for researchers. Software improved over time to simplify using it.
What benefit would there be? The benefit would be that it prevents AI bots from destroying Open Access.