This has the same energy as people who don't care if controversial images in social media are AI generated, as long as they're engaging.

It makes a huge difference if the writing was manual or automated. LLMs generate verbose, generic writing, and ideas that could be concisely expressed in a sentence inflate to entire paragraphs. It's disrespectful to readers when the author saves a couple of hours by wasting thousands of their readers.

I wasted some time trying to get a sense of the content, to "judge it on its merit". It is a total slop. And if i knew beforehand that it is AI, i'd have spent much less time as the first short look would have confirmed that it is slop.

If AI wrote it, it is not worth effort engaging with.

Article from a trusted organization is supposed to be grounded in real-life events and filtered through their specific area of expertise. They bet their reputation on it, at least in theory. Current agents have none of that, and you can't trust their output to the same extent in practice. Too much recognizable slop in the article suggests high degree of autonomy of the agent that has been used, and raises doubts about trusting the entire article. It might be the valid opinion of the author rephrased by the model, but you can't tell as it obscures actual intent and the amount of real life data.

Nonsense. Of course the tool matters.

That's why I only use code written in Vim. Emacs corrupts the othewise identical bits, just like AI. Gets 'em all greasy and then they smell funny.