Each one can choose their own tools of course, but we often see llms shown as solutions to something presented as unsolvable before, while it already was pretty amenable to normal tools.
I see that as a symptom of being intellectually lazy, or not knowing the value in mastering a tool via deliberate use over time.
Once one invests the required time to use a tool properly, they can reap way more benefits from said tool when compared to jumping tools at minute's notice.
As mentoned somewhere else, zotero's metadata retrieval is like 50% hit/miss in my experience - as in for the papers i've imported it was able to ID about half of them. An the quality of that data is not that great either. Lots of OCR errors, sparse bibtext fields, author names wrong, etc.
I have tried filling some missing fields in my books list with help of an LLM, and none of the books were rare. I allowed it to search the internet and it hallucinated so bad that I nuked that version of the list and reverted all the changes.
It's more accurate with all the holes in the data.
Really? This does not reflect my experience at all. I've been using the Beaver plugin and also Claude Code, and they have been spot on.