If AI writing was good enough then they wouldn't be able to tell. Also, some people lying on social media won't change any minds about whether they will be fired.

> they do this intentionally as a way to denigrate all AI writing — even when the content is good/interesting

If people only cared about AI for fiction writing, this would be fine. "Good/interesting" writing can be tolerated when nothing is at stake.

For nonfiction writing however, AI is rhetorically neutered. LLMs have no inherent authority/ethos without citing non-AI works. LLMs do not possess logic/logos that is rooted in the real, human experience. There is no emotional/pathos appeal that can be made between a human and a nonliving entity.

Aristotle et. al. would have considered most AI writing a waste of digital parchment. How would you feel if I answered this question with Qwen or GLM instead of hand-writing it?

People honestly don’t know what they want. I know, sounds impossible. Love hate relationships are abundant throughout humanity and everyone who knows how to get what they want knows how to play upon this multiplicity.

AI is becoming better by the day. In the first few models it used to be cliche and very template-like. Nowadays is exceptional but it still remains with a few obvious things like the over use of hyphens — but other than that. People hate for hating; I'd say 8 out of 10 people use it. Generated images have become really good tho but people over using it without criteria is a problem. Other than that, AI is great, except for the layoffs but is typical in new technologies for that type of transition.