Not quoting the primary source does not per chance have anything to do with the source being a not peer reviewed archive of the Cornell University, does it? I wonder, is that normal in the field of AI research?
Cornell Unversity owns ArXiv.org, that doesn’t mean they have much to do with the content of that article, as they clearly state that ArXiv.org is not peer-reviewing articles hosted there.
Not quoting the primary source does not per chance have anything to do with the source being a not peer reviewed archive of the Cornell University, does it? I wonder, is that normal in the field of AI research?
Here’s the source https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.01797
What does Cornell have to do with it? Genuinely curious as that seems completely out of the blue to me. Source was clearly Chinese.
Cornell Unversity owns ArXiv.org, that doesn’t mean they have much to do with the content of that article, as they clearly state that ArXiv.org is not peer-reviewing articles hosted there.