> You have to be deeply ensconced inside an impenetrable bubble to do that to yourself.

I largely agree with your point, but I’m afraid you are the one in the bubble. Detecting AI writing is a rare skill, not the norm. It’s glaringly obvious to those of us who use AI a lot, but it’s not that obvious to the average person.

To the point of absurdity in cases – I’ve seen loads of people who hate AI complain about AI online, not realising that the account they are talking to is nothing but a simple spam bot.

Yeah, I get that it can be amazing and be of superhuman intelligence and all that, but also it reads exactly like the slop article I saw yesterday that was giving baking instructions for “wood biscuits” (which are a method of joining in cabinetry and are not tasty at all): https://thehoneypotbakery.com/wood-biscuit-size-chart/

Do not match your communication style to nonsense articles.

[dead]

Replying to myself, because iliatoli's reply to me was [dead] so fast I couldn't reply to it directly...

"The physics is mine — thirteen years of it, starting from the 2013 paper. I use AI for editing, as I use a calculator for arithmetic. The transition state, the barrier, the molecular model, the fluorine uniqueness argument — all computed on my workstation. The tone criticism is heard and will be addressed in revision. The calculations don't change with the prose."

This is NOT about "prose." You're missing the point. Badly. And damn that's frustrating.

Read carefully and inculcate: Do not use LLM to write anything you expect to be taken seriously. This is not negotiable. It doesn't matter if all your peers and colleagues are doing exactly that. It doesn't matter that this is your first experience with such a reaction: it's not a fluke. DO. NOT. DO. IT.

Am I getting through?