For what it's worth, both the article you're linking to and the one this story is about are immediately flagged by AI text checkers as LLM-generated. These tools are not perfect, but they're right more often than they're wrong.
Based on what in particular? The only time I have used them is to have a laugh.
A lot of people on HN have preconceived notions here based on stories they read about someone being unfairly accused of plagiarism or people deliberately triggering failure modes in these programs, and that's basically like dismissing the potential of LLMs because you read they suggested putting glue on a pizza once.
I think your tools need a lot more evidence to be considered reliable.
1: https://arstechnica.com/staff/2026/02/editors-note-retractio...
Proof? Which one? I would like to test a few other articles with your checker to test its accuracy.