Negative Results In Science

Yeah I both hate and love science. I love the ideology but hate the politics. I checked recently and my paper with a cool new tech that took 6 years has 32 citations whereas my paper that showed incremental understanding and only took 2 years (but from a more prestigious lab) has 89. People are going crazy over the AI that "published" at a conference. They don't understand that 1) it's not a real journal publication and 2) publishing a negative result is almost never done because it takes time and money and will do nothing to further your career. It's sort of a joke but lots of people online are saying "we should publish negative results too" which in theory I agree with but yeah. I replied to one guy on YouTube @GS-hv9rd you just, admittedly so good on you for saying so, don't understand. I was in academia for almost a decade and yes it's disappointing but you have to understand that people in individual labs are very protective of their work, they don't want to share everything with everyone because: 1) someone could steal their ideas 2) someone else working on the same thing might publish in a lesser journal but with fewer results but just to be the "first one" (also known as being "scooped") 3) publishing requires time and effort so the time you spend publishing your negative result is time you could be spending getting positive results that actually can help your career (as opposed to negative results that will do nothing for you) There's more but hopefully that helps in understanding why End of response Here's the paper where the AI got "published" https://sakana.ai/ai-scientist-first-publication/