> the article whose provenance you are defending is clearly LLM-“punched up” at a minimum.
I'm not even going to ask for your evidence, because the previous argument I had was a frustrating waste of time that ended with insane reality denial by the other party: "Textbooks don't contain section headers every few paragraphs." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46256470
I encourage you to read through the entire argument, though, and see how the AI accuser makes false empirical claims and generalizations at every step, constantly moving the goalposts whenever I presented disproof.
