Do people reading this post not understand that this is the output of a prompt like 'analyze <event> with <perspective> arriving at <conclusion>'? Tighten up your epistemology if you're arguing with an author who isn't there.
The point is still valid, although I've seen it made many times over.
Unlikely. AI keeps improving, and we are already at the point where real people are accused of being AI.
But at this point I'm not confident that I'm not failing to identify a lot of LLM-generated text and not making false positives.