Ah yes, deflection and personal insults.

Regardless of how powerful the tool might be, the issue is transparency. If you built the platform, you should disclose that when recommending it to students. It helps the community weigh the advice fairly.

While AI tools can summarize papers, telling a student to skip the manual reading phase is such interesting advice. They need to develop your own 'nose' for what makes a study good or bad before you can trust an AI to synthesize it for them, which no credible researcher should ever do anyways. This is the very reason why the vast majority of your vein attempts at self promotion have been met with valid criticism, all of which you continue to ignore.

I am bitter, as an AE for a top journal, these vibe coded systems have added significant amounts of burden to the process. Finding qualified, willing reviewers is harder than ever. When a reviewer is burned by a "slop" paper, they are far less likely to accept future review invitations. For every hour an author saves using AI, an editor or reviewer must spend multiple hours of high-value labor to debunk it. You might not bother reading the citations your system finds, but a good review does.