Because the tools don't understand the papers either. We know for a fact that:
1. These tools are wrong a significant % of the time
2. They have an upper complexity bound where they start to fall apart
Relying on AI to check AI papers is a terrible idea
So, just like humans then?
But where they do differ is they do have an infinite stamina, and can work on problems in loops, self-correcting their own mistakes if a formal way of checking the correctness of the solution exists. Which does happen to be the case with math.
Humans can be wrong, but luckily we have an entire process for dealing with this, which is broadly called this new fangled 'science' thing
> but luckily we have an entire process for dealing with this
and why does this "peer-review" new-age thing cannot be used to scrutinize AI-writted/AI-assisted papers?
The trope of superficially likening every aspect of LLMs to humans is specious and lazy.
Yes you're replying to astroturfers or AI psychosis victims.