[eeeeeeehio]

It's not too difficult to state any idea, even a surprising one. But often, papers with surprising ideas (or maybe the right thing to say is surprising results?) turn out to be wrong!

I think it's still the case that there's lots of ideas that (if they worked!) would be surprising. Anyone can state outlandish ideas in a paper -- imo the contribution is proving (e.g. with sound "experiments", interpreted broadly) that they actually work. Unfortunately, I think clarity of writing matters more to reviewers than the soundness of your experiments. I think in CS this could very well change if the reviewers willed it (i.e. require artifact submission with the paper, and allow papers to be rejected for faults in the artifact)