On your point about "monitoring", personally I feel this is toxic corporate IT culture, enabled and perhaps pushed by the likes of Microsoft with all their tools, which they of course make money off. People have cellphones with cameras making most points in this area moot.

An alternative used in other big corporates is to set budgets, with tiered authorisation approvals for higher limits. The users and their managers can justify why and what they're doing that they need the additional tokens. This also encourages more efficient use of tokens on other work. More efficient use is sometimes counterintuitive. Laissez-faire generally works best.

Cowork requires user approvals for high risk actions such as emailing.

I'm being serious.

Most things these days, good or bad, are not designed for power users.

Ironically many here I'm sure are running MacOS.

I feel your concern stems from the risk that there is additional noise everyone needs to cut through.

In reality this isn't any tom, dick or Harry giving you their vibe code output. They have spent millions of dollars on this output, so there is a filter. The biggest filter of them all, funding.

Furthermore, LLM's have given us another gift semantic search, we can easily check your work against theirs, this is valuable insight so instead of researchers wasting decades and fortunes pursuing an avenue that shows no value (this includes methods), they can purse new avenues they know what to avoid, in the same breath they know what to work towards.

Einstein did not typically use the formal peer review system to "settle on published work." Almost all of his major papers (including his landmark 1905 Annus Mirabilis papers) were published directly by journal editors without formal peer review.

When Physical Review sent his 1936 draft to a referee, Einstein was so outraged that he withdrew the paper and vowed never to publish with the journal again. He corrected his math only after an informal, friendly discussion with colleague Howard Percy Robertson—who, unbeknownst to Einstein, was the anonymous reviewer.

Peer reviewed and published insights are proven invalid all the time. This is the nature of research and how we learn.

If you're after new methods. Then new methods is the goal, the answer to the question is not the goal then. The animated response indicates the answer wasn't just a byproduct.

There is still something to glean from the answer. You have a further constraint. Otherwise whatever "new method" proposed may as well be hallucination, potentially taking you in the wrong direction away from the answer.

This line of thought is not unique, stonemasons made obsolete by uniform brickword suddenly were "worried about the art and preserving traditions".

During your write up, I'd imagine you would check it's not already out there too. And once complete it's cheap and easy to run it through an LLM and ask is this covered by anything else out there. If its novel and not published it doesn't matter what others say.

Research is already messy as it stands. Something new can already be dismissed by incumbents as "not novel enough" especially in niche fields where they're likely to be the ones conducting peer review.