A great way to address those concerns would be to look at the reputation of the person being questioned, who in this case is the editor of Linux Journal. That doesn't prove he'd never use AI, but it does mean it's not some random blogger trying to sell their reputation for cheap karma before anyone notices.
But really, I don't care. I'm far more annoyed with people racing to cash in with "this looks like it was written by AI" on every. single. post. Yeah, we get it. It does not make the accuser look more clever or insightful. It makes them look like a pest.
> That doesn't prove he'd never use AI, but it does mean it's not some random blogger trying to sell their reputation for cheap karma before anyone notices.
It wouldn't be the first time I've seen a formerly reputable web site start churning out AI slop, unfortunately. And, for what it's worth, this other article on the site, published a few days ago, doesn't fill me with confidence either:
https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/veil-vigilance-tails-60...
It's mostly a paraphrase of the official release notes (https://blog.torproject.org/new-release-tails-60/), and it's over a year late - Tails 6.0 was released in February 2024. Even if it's human-written, it's a weird topic to choose and an extremely lazy way to write about it.
I’m not saying he’s a great author, just that it’s ridiculous to accuse him of that because he uses bullet points.