Faculty reviewers are not only overworked, they have accumulated biases, can be overconfident about their expertise and in the worst case have malicious incentive to prohibit publication of your results.
I’m certain that a team of specialists who review as their full time job would do a better job than at least half of the reviewers I encountered (especially those at high-profile AI conferences).
I enjoy reviewing too and am doing my best to be constructive, but I’m not sufficiently qualified for most of the offers I receive.
My point is, the only way to get the necessary skillset for reviewing is to actually do research. Hence it is peer-review. Once you are doing scientific research, there generally isn't anyone left who is 'better at it then you' so the best you can do is have it be reviewed by people who are 'roughly as good at it as you'.
To ensure the long-term accuracy, we need both attempts at reproduction, and critical reading by people post publication. Both of those should have the option to cause the article to be retracted.
How would each of those specialists retain currency in the field by just doing reviews?
Isn't that what the editor panels do more effectively today (of course farming out the detailed/specialist aspects to actual peer reviewers)?
„Currency“: Broad expertise, knowledge about methods and ideas are gathered by reading literature in-depth, which most scientists have little time for in modern science (hence the reluctance to engage in a long peer review process). Working as a paid reviewer for a few years can lead to a scientist who is informed very well about the state of the broader field and its various fallacies, and could move on from there. We have very few of those.
Editors: We wouldn’t have various discussions around peer review if the current system would be working satisfactorily well and nothing needs to change.