Yeah, I haven't used AIs enough to be that good at immediately spotting generated output, so I appreciate the chance to reconsider my assumption that something was human-written. I'm sure people who did NOT use an AI find it insulting to be so accused, but I'd rather normalize those accusations and shift the norm to see them as suspicions rather than accusations.

I do find it more helpful when people specify why they think something was AI-generated. Especially since people are often wrong (fwict).

Yes. Especially on articles - the baseline assumption is that most articles are written by humans, and it's nice to know when that expectation may have been violated.