Where previously it took 100 units of effort to deal with 10 units of effort of bullshit, it now takes 100 to deal with 1.
This is only irrelevant if you place no value on the time of yourself and others.
This is only irrelevant if you place no value on the time of yourself and others.
Someone submitting AI generated reviews becomes relevant again when deciding whether to keep a reviewer around - a pattern of useful looking but useless and time wasting 'contributions' is relevant.
Basically don't over index on whether someone is using AI to be a shitter, focus on the problematic behavior.
I do get the point that LLMs make producing crap easier but that's somewhat independent of LLMs being used generally--which is going to happen in any case.
We should not be predicating our concerns about LLM-generated content solely on its "quality", because ultimately, the problem with it is that it is generic. I think it unlikely that it will have the ability to produce a genuine and thoughtful critique of a journal article until and unless there are significant breakthroughs, possibly even to the level of achieving AGI or something like it. Even using a more-advanced review-specific LLM like I describe above more widely does present serious concerns, because it runs the risk of suppressing articles that deviate from the "norm" in ways that the LLM doesn't have any way to appreciate, but which can present the findings better or even make the science better.
As the percentage of garbage that goes into peer review (or any other filter) increases, the percentage of garbage that manages to sneak through will increase.