The 12% of human posts that do what AI do in repeating things, are they human slop?
I personally don't think it is possible to identify human and AI, it is however probably more possible to identify unoriginal and boring quality writing and art.
This was perhaps not clear from my first post, as I tend to imply points rather than tediously stating them.
Like its fine if you hold a blanket dismissal of the very premise of the research here, but then its kinda weird to spend such effort being grumpy about it in this particular context?
Its like finding a paper that does certain comparative work between different kinds of apple pie and choosing to come on here and be like "I don't think we should ever have any dessert either way!"
Because if you are not testing on people that are supposed to be the most German-like in their cooking then your ability to find the German cooking in a city renowned for its Thai food is not that impressive.
Then in response to your first question I posit that actually it is not possible to identify if pie was made by Germans but probably relatively easy to identify if it was made by people who cook in a German manner. And maybe that is actually more beneficial.
I realize that from communicating with people over the years that things which seem crystal clear to me may seem opaque to others, but I think your analogy is somewhat unfairly structured.
Note: apologies to German cooks and their cooking, although I personally only like currywurst. But I needed something to make the analogy more like what I felt had been communicated, and you were pseudo-randomly picked.