  To test the potential disruptive effect of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
transformers (e.g., ChatGPT) and their associated Large Language Models on the
time allocation process, both in proposal reviewing and grading, an experiment
has been set-up at ESO for the P112 Call for Proposals. The experiment aims at
raising awareness in the ESO community and build valuable knowledge by
identifying what future steps ESO and other observatories might need to take to
stay up to date with current technologies. We present here the results of the
experiment, which may further be used to inform decision-makers regarding the
use of AI in the proposal review process. We find that the ChatGPT-adjusted
proposals tend to receive lower grades compared to the original proposals.
Moreover, ChatGPT 3.5 can generally not be trusted in providing correct
scientific references, while the most recent version makes a better, but far
from perfect, job. We also studied how ChatGPT deals with assessing proposals.
It does an apparent remarkable job at providing a summary of ESO proposals,
although it doesn't do so good to identify weaknesses. When looking at how it
evaluates proposals, however, it appears that ChatGPT systematically gives a
higher mark than humans, and tends to prefer proposals written by itself.
