According to Google Scholar statistics, arXiv’s repository of “learning” papers (cs.LG) now constitute the 10th highest impact “journal” in the field — placing it above fairly well-known venues such as Machine Learning and Neural Computation. AI-related fields such as machine learning and computer vision are still largely driven by refereed conference proceedings, but assuming the underlying numbers are correct (and to be honest, the h5-median numbers seem rather suprisingly high) this is still a fairly noteworthy and probably positive development for academic publishing practices in computer science.
The dynamics are, of course, hard to predict — as submitting to arXiv becomes more popular, its possible that the “signal to noise” ratio will deteriorate and these statistics will consequently suffer. But with non-standard refereeing mechanisms now widely in place (like blog posts 😉 ) and near-real-time citation tracking (thanks again, Google Scholar), fluctuations in median quality may not seriously threaten the utility of such repositories.