I understand the point you're making, philosophically, but the pragmatist in me says that this practice needs to be discouraged (though an outright ban is proba

I understand the point you're making, philosophically, but the pragmatist in me says that this practice needs to be discouraged (though an outright ban is probably unenforceable). If you give busy reviewers an easy "out", where they can just run the paper through an LLM, do a bit of editing then send off the review, people are going to do exactly that. And the resulting review, with the right editing, might seem perfectly plausible and human-like. But that review isn't going to be able to offer suggestions with insight from recently published papers. It isn't going to be able to point out issues with the data, or with the statistical analysis, or with the paper's logical conclusions. Maybe someday AI will be capable enough to replace the role of human reviewers. But right now, encouraging this practice is just going to let a lot of bad science slip through to publication without genuine peer review. (even more than the large amount that already does, let's be honest ...)