Was there an analysis of flawed, low-effort reviews in similar conferences before generative AI models?

From what I remember, (long before generative AI) you would still occasionally get very crappy reviews (as author). When I participated (couple of times) to review committees, when there was a high variance between reviews the crappy reviews were rather easy to spot and eliminate.

Now it's not bad to detect crappy (or AI) reviews, but I wonder if it would change much the end result compared to other potential interventions.

> does not provide any concrete proof, but it confirms many people's suspicions

Without proof there is no confirmation.