I largely agree with your take on the subjective value of writing that I happen to know was generated by a machine, but that is not at all what I'm talking about here. I'm responding to the specific claim in TFA that LLMs produce low-quality output, detectable independently of whether the reader knows how it was produced:

> I am appalled at the absolute shit [LLMs] spew as prose. They always follow the same robotic cadence and cliches, and sprinkle the same tired vocabulary all around.

This claim is demonstrably untrue, and central to the author's overall thesis.