+1. The article itself hides it well, but the draft paper linked at the end is clearly 100% AIGC.

And the paper is clearly the ancestor to the article itself, based on the date (5dec -> 11dec)

I agree. It’s an inversion of the usual pattern: AI-generated “thoughts”, written up by a human.

I’m surprised this made it to the front page of HN. I think AI tools are making it easier to create increasingly plausible-sounding bullshit, and gradually overwhelming the defenses of this community.

That's exactly what I read out of it. I should yave stopped midway.