We show that AI-generated article reviews are now better, by every measure we could construct, than reviews written by well-compensated human experts and judged to be of unusually high quality by journal editors and authors. We then discuss how this result may inform journal policy choices, with concerning downsides as well as potential paths to increase publication speed and quality; reduce adversarial interactions; improve the experience of editors, reviewers, authors, and readers; and advance science.

By Gary King and Steven Worthington , not even using what are now the very best models, rather based on Claude Opus 4.8. The details of the dominance, as outlined in the paper, are striking. It is not close.

On my Saez and Zucman post , I find it striking that some people are complaining all of a sudden. Yet I have been offering, citing, and linking to commentary on published papers for twenty-four years now (and every single day).…