So I just read the article a bit more closely, and personally I see no reason to panic like you (and others here) are doing. The AI suspicion was presumably triggered by one of the subheadings, which follows the "It's not X, it's Y" schema. At this point it's almost a meme that this betrays AI.
But I say: who cares? The substance and the authenticity are what count. This article made some interesting points, and it was signed off on by a human author. Personally, I'm no more interested in whether the author used AI to produce the text than in whether they used a dictionary or thesaurus, as long as they stand by the words.
This whole "debate" has the feel of religion to it. I'm consistently surprised that there's so much woolly, unfalsifiable thinking on this subject. And here, of all places.
It’s not just that subheading, it’s a recurring pattern.
It’s not about authors using AI, it’s about authors not respecting the reader’s time.
Writing has a multiplicative force. The writer only needs to spend time writing it once. The text will reach thousands of readers who will collectively spend a lot more time on it than the author.
If even with that asymmetry, the author is not willing to put effort into writing it, I’m not going to bother reading it, regardless of the text’s substance. I’m just not interested.
With respect, if you cannot tell the two types of writing apart with certainty, then your analysis is akin to superstition.
Speaking for myself (as ever), I am just not bothered by what bothers you. Good writing is good writing. Bad writing is bad writing. Who or what generated it, and how much time it took, is immaterial.
I'm glad all the assumptions about other people got walked back, I hope the openness about my personal situation re: AI was concrete proof why everyone identifying AI writing is not a panicking person afraid of it and starting a new religion against it. :) Cheers.
[dead]