I lived in a sub-500 apartment with roommates so I was probably just wholly unaware - thinking back more deeply one friend lived in a studio the size of a closet that was just shy of 900.
That’s been a hidden instability of those markets, in my opinion - housing prices being so outlandish makes it trivial to cash out. For an average renter, moving probably maxes out at a few thousand.
Weak topsoil because of too few roots leads to a dust bowl like scenario.
I feel it is less directly cheapening all research and more bifurcating the term between engaged and unengaged audiences. The audience must decide when searching becomes researching, which I doubt is the second time you are feeling lucky.
If I google, find a primary source with reasonable data, and form an argument based on that, then I’ve done research. It was simply easier based on the Internet, but the research is not proof-of-work - a well-supported conclusion is just that no matter the effort.
On the other hand, I google, copy and paste the first link and parrot what it said - then I have indeed cheapened it. I’ve skipped the evaluation step of researching, wherein I convince myself of the “facts” of the past and I’ve also failed to extend any new thoughts as we’ve just parroted the argument.
My main point being, to a critical reader only “bad” research is cheap. It is also the duty of the audience, just as much the researcher, to evaluate what they read critically and respond with skepticism.
[0] https://openai.com/index/built-to-benefit-everyone/