@emilymbender Sorry, I think we must be talking past each other — I absolutely agree that there's value in having work vetted by people who have the expertise to vet them, & I'm not suggesting that arXiv is providing any system of vetting at all!
When I see something that's peer reviewed, I think "someone with status in the relevant field glanced at this, thought it was interesting, didn't notice any egregious errors". That's a higher bar than arXiv, sure, but not by itself "found to be solid".
@emilymbender I'm confused, because it seems like the view you're expressing here (re: "3. Community-based vetting of research is key") is implying something like "a small community should be doing evaluation of contributions, and those evaluations should then be deferred to" rather than "members of the small community should find new & effective ways to support a larger and more chaotic community to gain critical evaluation skills". The first feels elitist, and the second feels democratising.
@heuser @lexipenia seems like prediction markets might be taking this possibility pretty seriously: https://manifold.markets/EsbenKran/will-elon-musk-announce-the-creatio?r=Z2FsZW4
a Schelling point for those who seek one