In an ideal world, sure. In reality, a PhD[1] is about publishing papers in the hope that you learn something along the way.
[1] My experience in ML in 2026.
[1] My experience in ML in 2026.
You're being needlessly dismissive of what "publishing papers" mean. Writing down what you learn is what papers are for, and the only papers that count for a PhD are those which are accepted by reference journals, which impose a relatively high bar on what content they accept.
So you still need to explore uncharted areas, and your main output is still writing down what you found for others to build upon. Those are the deliverables. For the person doing the PhD, the primary benefit is developing research skills, such as independente and self-reliance.
Nope. In fact they accept utter garbage most of the time. I can't count the numbers of times I've caught pure errors (literal logic errors, code errors, mathematical errors) even in highly respected journals. Journals have a high bar of entry because they've gated their communities, only allowing insiders to publish (ie tenured professors, people associated/employed with university labs or their colleagues). If you don't have an industry connection the odds of you self publishing in these journals is zero. And if you _do_ find a connection, say a professor whose willing to help you out, they'll demand to place their name on your paper (without actually contributing anything). This is how you get papers with 50 authors, because every politicker wanted a piece of the pie.
This is also why you see frontier AI labs self-publishing on their websites rather than in journals.
Unless you enrolled in a fraudulent, make-believe University of Phoenix style program, no. Any real PhD program only counts publications in a closed allowlist of reputable journals. Those journals are peer reviewed and enforce quality and relevance standards.
> I can't count the numbers of times I've caught pure errors (literal logic errors, code errors, mathematical errors) even in highly respected journals.
That's fine and all, specially if what you actually want to do is take a shot at humble bragging, but back in the subject papers are supposed to be snapshots of your understanding of a topic that can be used by others to inspire or advance their exploration. This means they are not infallible or free from criticism. In fact, it is rather ok brand to publish papers improving upon prior publications by correcting errors, improving methodologies, and even presenting contradictory evidence. That is what it means to be at the bleeding edge.
What they self-publish on their own websites should be regarded as marketing.
No. What qualifies you as a researcher is being able to output work that is accepted by your peers. Hence the peer review process is critical. You fail to meet this bar if you publish something in blogspot or even arxiv for that matter.
You are trying too hard to come up with excuses. The paper review process is double-blind, and nothing prevents you from publishing the same work in multiple journals. If your goal is to do meaningful contributions to science then "power dynamics" are irrelevant.
You do need to develop a meaningful network in the field if your goal is to collaborate with other researchers, but that's basically what everyone needs to do in any professional field.
Like I get that the current social norms around "research" might not be there yet, but if they refuse to adapt, I just see that as a reason to defund "research" and start from scratch.
If you plan to go to industry, your incentives are somewhat misaligned with your PI. In that case you want to pursue multiple internships and getting networked with top companies in your field, and demonstrating practical output, well-released code, demonstrated downstream value for followup projects etc.