Why don't you focus on the actual content instead of attacking its authorship? Your comment is clearly written by an AI.
Some of us think that anything created by an AI should be labeled as such. Is that an inherently evil belief?
It is a little dumbfounding to compare the seeming emotionality/outrage of your posts with that which spurred it.
I'm pretty confident they're heavily (if not fully) relying on LLM-generated text. Maybe they're drafting it themselves first and getting an LLM to refine. I found some recent articles by the same author which gave me the same reaction:
https://medium.com/@kanishks772/computer-scientists-just-bro...
and:
https://medium.com/@kanishks772/why-your-next-gps-might-use-...
They seem to have a process for grabbing a research paper, getting an LLM to summarise it, adding AI-generated images and pseudo code, and publishing it. There are lots of parallels in describing fundamental breakthroughs overturning decades of conventional wisdom. And it has the same clipped bullet lists with sound bite phrases, and slideshow style headings. It's extremely reminiscent of what happens when I ask Claude to give me a summary of something.
As a general note, I do think it best to take any article written by AI with a pinch of salt. Much like you should closely review any code they write. It's not at the level of a human expert, but it's trained to convince you that it is one.
It should make no difference it's written by AI or not. One should evaluate and criticize content without regard to who or what has written it. Conversely, just because a human writes something should not and does not make it superior.
People like you shamelessly attempt to suppress a broad spectrum of writing whenever they find something to disagree with, by blaming it on AI. That's what's evil about it.
Secondly, almost all content is going to be produced in part with assistance from AI tools, not necessarily to write the content, but at least to discover and understand source materials for it. Would you say that a search engine was used? AI is the new search engine too.
Your assertion that using AI makes content worse is a false one. Many use it to make their content better.
Also, you originally perpetuated a false dichotomy. Content is typically going to be produced in collaboration with AI.
Instead of using your lazy attack, if you actually see a real issue with some content, why not just document any issue with the content in good faith with the mindset that the content were written by a human?
Consider what you are fighting. Do you think your fight has a future where your side will come out victorious such that humans write content without AI?
> It should make no difference it's written by AI or not.
It absolutely should.
It is plain wrong to make an unsubstantiated and unproven accusation, and even if were true, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Moreover, it demonstrates an unjustified anti-AI bias which is a separate problem.