It's not "an essay" it's a thesis done by someone who is an expert in the field. AI has been advancing but is, generally, not yet considered to be an expert in much.
The idea that a PhD is an expert in the field is, I think, a generous assumption.
And you are missing my point about the wide range of fields to which these novice experts are coming from.
Rachael Gunn is an expert in the field of (break)dance, if I extend your position, and her essay is an expert testimony broadening the field of knowledge?
I think it's entirely possible for PhD (or Masters or anyone) to extend debunked theories, to extend or invent nonsensical positions yet to be debunked, to do research of no value, or merely for value to the student and their advisor as a way to increase citations, career advancement, and so on.
I would argue that this is a more reasonable default assumption. In fact, I think the university system favors this likelihood. Students aren't, to my knowledge, asked to examine the worlds problems and take a stab at them.
They are lead into very specific tracks, possibly by their advisor, possibly by the department, possibly by funding or current trends in the field, to do work around a particular area which may go nowhere close to helping all of humanity.
And a "thesis" is just a a really long essay. It has no special quality or instrinsic value, in my humble opinion.
There is no perfection in life. But I will still put forward that the explicit goal of a PhD is exactly what you feel is hard to believe: it is to become an expert in some field and produce novel and impactful research. It’s not just “writing an essay”: there is a thesis, sure, but also an expectation of several other peer-reviewed papers and a defense. This is actually very critical and often forgotten in Hacker News, which largely does not understand why peer review is important. The whole point is that all then other experts in the field; the ones who have already gotten their credentials and are respected for their contributions, all come together and repeatedly verify that the contributions are worthy.
Does fraud happen? Of course. Do people submit more papers on hot topics because they think they are more likely to be approved? Of course. Are some people plagiarizing or misrepresenting the impact of their work? Of course. But the point is to reduce this, and the specific goal organizationally is to reduce these because they harm the reputation and purity of the idea.
I feel like your concern is similar to someone going “firefighting is not actually intrinsically beneficial for humanity”. When someone tells me they’re a firefighter I generally think that they’re doing something valuable. You can argue, well some of them use it as an excuse to get inside a house so they can loot it. Or others are private firefighters for oil companies, and not the “good” community firefighters that save houses. Maybe some of them are doing it for the money and not because they actually particularly care for saving people. But I would counter that the concept is sound and that obvious abuse is, in theory, supposed to be punished.
