Hacker News Reader

Personally I wouldn't cite Gemini for this because I have no idea if it has any kind of track record of accurately distinguishing human from AI writing.

That said, Pangram agrees and its track record is pretty good.

> particularly because it has original quotes.

I'm not saying the quotes are fake, that would be horrific. I'm saying the rest of the article appears to have had minimal human intervention.

At some point, however distasteful to the naturalists, do we accept that writing with AI is still writing? There will be an arms race the way there was moving from banner ads -> whatever hellscape we have today ...

It's the same as copying and pasting the wikipedia article and calling that your article. We all can generate our own slop if we want. If all you are peddling is slop, you are peddling nothing I can't get myself.

Then why did you point to the em-dash in the quote as evidence of AI authorship?

LLMs did not invent clickbaity headlines. Kinda odd that people think it did