[intended]

The article talks about LLMs reviewing Econ papers.

I’m hesitant to call this an outright win, though.

Perhaps the review service the author is using is really good.

Almost certainly the taste, expertise and experience of the author is doing unseen heavy lifting.

I found that using prompts to do submission reviews for conferences tended to make my output worse, not better.

Letting the LLM analyze submissions resulted in me disconnecting from the content. To the point I would forget submissions after I closed the tab.

I ended up going back to doing things manually, using them as a sanity check.

On the flip side, weaker submissions using generative tools became a nightmare, because you had to wade through paragraphs of fluff to realize there was no substantive point.

It’s to the point that I dread reviewing.

I am going to guess that this is relatively useful for experts, who will submit stronger submissions, than novices and journeymen, who will still make foundational errors.