It’s a dismissal with no evidence i.e. it’s a witch hunt. And no one should support that.

The fact that the whole thread has basically devolved into debates over if it is or isn't an LLM written article is proving well enough that it doesn't really matter one way or another

It is a witch hunt with no evidence whatsoever, all based on intuition. It is distraction from the main topic, a topic that enough people find interesting to stay on the top page. What was intellectually interesting has now become a bore fest of repeated back and forth. That’s disrespectful and inconsiderate. Write a new post about why do you think AI writing is dangerous. I don’t mind that. I’d upvote it.

And flagging is appropriate when you think content is not authentic

Twelve year old account and who knows how much lurking before that and I've never noticed this. Good lord.

Optimistically, I guess I can call myself some sort of live-and-let-live person.

> The site guidelines were written pre-AI and stop making sense when you add AI-generated content into the equation.

Note: the guidelines are a living document that contain references to current AI tools.

> Consider that by submitting AI generated content for humans to read, the statement you're making is "I did not consider this worth my time to write, but I believe it's worth your time to read, because your time is worth less than mine". It's an inherently arrogant and unbalanced exchange.

This is something worth saying about a pure slop content. But the "charge" against the current item is that a reader encountered a feeling that an LLM was involved in the production of interesting content.

With enough eyeballs, all prose contains LLM tells.

We don't need to be told every time someone's personal AI detection algorithm flags. It's a cookie-banner comment: no new information for the reader, but a frustratingly predictable obstacle to scroll through.