synthesis

In a way, this discussion here is proof as to why human code review is necessary.

- The paper is garbage, and a human review process would reject it.

__As is the case in this discussion__. The sentiment of the discussion section (at the time of writing) seems to be in favor of rejecting this paper. (Of course, to make it a proper experiment, one would need to also give the paper to a "generative AI" reviewer to see if it would reject it or not, but I cannot bother.)

Here is my take:

- I disagree with the contributions

- I suspect most of the paper was written / edited by "generative AI"

It is a shame that "researchers" have started using generative AI to such a large degree as it now masks the voice of the person. Generative AI tends to claim things that are not true and tends to use words that are unsuitable. This text leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

(Edits: formatting)

This reminds me of a paper on Byzantine quorum systems "Asymmetric Distributed Trust" from 2020 by Christian Cachin and Björn Tackmann https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.OPODIS.2019.7. After reading said paper, I was contemplating the benefits of an assymetric quorum system for (non-byzantine) consensus. I concluded that I couldn't find any benefits in doing so. If I remember correctly, say that one quorum consists of 3 out of 7 nodes, then you no longer tolerate 3 failures for a 7 node cluster (something you would tolerate with the common majority-quorum approach). So there is no benefit with this. In terms of performance, the leader will synchronize with 6 other nodes. In a majority-quorum system that can tolerate two fails, a leader will synchronize with 4 other nodes. So there is also a performance drawback. That being said, there may be performance benefits that can be gained by weighting nodes differently and asymmetrically.