It's about what prompted asking the question in the first place. For me, and many others, when we notice an article is difficult to read, has lots of lies and hallucinations, and other serious issues that clearly indicate it was not well thought out, edited or written, we usually ask "was it written by AI?" because that's usually the reason today.

Sucks that this has to be the case. But lots of people today are passing off >50% AI written outputs as though they are their own, without attribution. And it results in a lot more effort on the readers' part to do validation on the writing that the writer should have done.

Of course if you have no issue so be it. Several others and myself though feel like its low quality, and also deceptive not to label such outputs in this way. It is also irresponsible because it is requiring significantly more effort on the readers part to discern why things don't make sense and feel so odd and confusing. (not say all AI writing is this way, but the ones that are, well its what I said). edit: I personally would prefer you just share the prompts rather than the output, because the output was not written in the form that I prefer and I want it in the form I choose to make it easy for me to understand. That would mean I would rather have the prompt and make sense of it on my own, or have my own AI synthesize an output in the form that makes sense for me. I don't want the thing you thought I wanted but gave to AI to do since you were too lazy to write yourself. If you did put in the effort to write better, then sometimes it passes my quality bar.

You know you can quickly skim through any user's comment history? I think this one passes the eye test. It's not improbable but I think you're just paranoid if you believe this 2022 account was created to astroturf Kimi/GLM today.

Any x is a y.