Does everyone understand this sentence from the article?
Our central hypothesis concerning the aetiology of pith autolysis states that the carbon from the pith is transported to the growth regions of the plant and used at times when the plant cannot meet its carbon needs by photosynthesis alone. According to this hypothesis, accelerated growth should increase pith autolysis.
By 'carbon' and 'carbon needs' - the authors are referring to the carbon in the (carbon-containing) organic nutrients made previously by the plant (i.e., not the mineral nutrients absorbed through the roots, etc.) and stored in the pith. In other words, they're just saying:
Since plants store their carbs and other stuff in the pith, we think that they must break it down at times to use it elsewhere. So, if we artificially increase growth by injecting tomato plants with the growth hormone GA3, then we would expect to see the plants break down the pith faster / quicker / more to use those nutrients elsewhere.
They're not saying it's a bad thing, just that it happens. It's not really any different than plants pulling N from old growth leaves.
For a cannabis grower, 'when the plant cannot meet its carbon needs by photosynthesis alone' would mainly refer to times when the plant is focusing on non-leaf growth such as stretch or bud mass. Or, other factors that could cause demand to exceed supply - like if you suddenly cut lighting hours, or possibly if the plant is still trying to grow new branches at the bottom but you've already got a full canopy at the top blocking them, etc.
Overall, hollow stems at harvest are really just a secondary indicator that are neither good nor bad in and of themselves. For example, you could conclude that 'hey, I optimized the grow environment well enough that the plant used every resource available to it while it died (i.e., matured)'. Or, you could conclude 'I have room to cut N, limit stretch, do more training, etc during my next grow.' Or, you could just have weak lights and the plant was never able to store many nutrients in the pith to begin with. But, even in the 'bad' cases, there's usually something 'badder' than hollow stems that you would or should have noticed first.
Keep in mind, too, that the internet and other sites also seem to have confused 'hollow stems' with 'weak stems' - but those are two separate things. The pith is at the center because the center of a cylinder provides much less resistance to bending than the mass at the periphery (which is why your tent poles are hollow). And, bending stresses (and the amount of resistance needed) increase with the height of a beam (i.e., stem).
The bulk of what we would refer to as stem strength is provided by the epidermis / outer regions. So, weak / droopy stems are more because of other factors that could range from Ca/Si/etc, to just drooping when low on water (lower turgidity), but usually are mainly just a result of previous stretch in the grow (including any lack of resistance training from wind, etc).
So, as BadFinger indicated above, the best answer to 'hollow stems - good or bad' is probably just 'not applicable' or 'it depends' or even 'who cares'.
But, because of the nature of the internet, it's something that growers notice and then go searching for a simple answer online and then find discussions and threads that confuse things more and then ask more questions which lead to more conversations and misinterpretations which then move those pages higher in the search results which just builds up the myth further, etc. All while the OGs are looking on and thinking 'I never read anything about this in high times and it was never a problem for me, so I never cared or really thought much about it...what the heck's wrong with these kids nowadays anyways?'