Which is kind of the point I was inferring. Everything now is just a stake in the ground, house pending… I think for a paper about an algorithm or novel way of doing something should be required to include the source code (not necessarily for release, but for proof to the journal reviewer at least). I’ve waited countless times for source code promised in a paper to never arrive, only to be flipped into some commercial offering only the ultra wealthy can afford. So I’m taking the stance of “I don’t believe you unless there’s a runtime or source code” because it’s too easy with AI to fake the claim.
As in: you don’t get your name published unless you include a public Git repo URL and a docker container that can run your code.
Otherwise, what’s to stop someone literally photoshopping some made up algorithm presented as vaguely believable pseudocode?
“I have an invisible dragon in my garage, but I can’t open the door right now to show you. Just believe me.”