Too often, advocates try to smuggle in their preferred policy using stories like this as cover.
The story itself being true or not doesn't really matter - they're weaponizing an appeal to emotion by using a disabled person as a prop to violate everyone else's standards of interaction.
The bone of contention is that the signal:noise ratio on GPT's output is super low and there is no way to tell the difference between a thoughtful GPT post and slop, and given how easy it is to post at volume with low-effort AI posts, there is a bias towards caution rather than acceptance.
At best it's a case-by-case affordance to use AI as opposed to a blanket rule.
I'm really having trouble grasping the true breadth of this problem in the wild. How much of it am I not seeing because the mods filter it out first? How much is faulty signal detection from readers?