I've seen quite a few preprints posted on HN with clearly fantastical claims that only seem to reinforce or ride the coattails of the current hype cycle. It's no longer research, it's becoming "top of funnel thought leadership".

Yep, so good that they have to be specifically reviewed because otherwise people wouldn’t believe how good they are.

Actual papers are as good as ever. This is just trying to stop the flood of autogenated slop, if anything because arXiv hosting space is not free.