It is not about the grammar though, that's just proof. It's about the overwhelming feeling that whoever "wrote" the piece hasn't read it at all - so why should you?

> I will be happy when this genre of whining fades away. Everyone has suddenly turned into the most obnoxious 7th grade English teacher imaginable.

I will not be happy because we will be lost as a culture when we give up on this.

The issue is about moving the burden of verification to the reader.

Its like you went to a potluck and brought a salad with you, you just closed your eyes and threw some things from the fridge together without thinking, it's all mixed together now and you don't know if something was old/moldy.

You are proud and happy that you brought a contribution, and you feel like your responsibility/duty ends there while the people who want to eat it have to be careful and fish things out, or just avoid it because they can't be sure if it was old or not.

Natural language is a non-verifiable domain due to the ambiguity of the intent, so we will never get away from this issue in LLM-land. You can't know intent of the writer unless they wrote it themselves.

"This is written by AI" has become the new "First Post!" The complainers might as well just run an automated bot that posts it to every HN article, to save them the trouble of typing.

Isn't this just whining about whining?

Knowing a long doc is AI-written, you aren't going to read it either.

It's not missing quotes, it's "i didn't write this at all, I put zero effort into it, I don't know what it says, it may be made up". Claude is good for code, terrible at prose, it boggles my mind that people use it to write PR descriptions, let alone their own personal thoughts.