It is a social signal of not really caring about the content, just like people who post in large swathes of bad grammar and spelling (relative to the local environment).

It is completely reasonable to read that signal, and completely reasonable to conclude that you shouldn't ask me to care more about your content than you did as the "creator".

Moreover, it suggests that your "content" may just be a prompt to an AI, and there is no great value to caching the output of an AI on the web, or asking me to read it. In six months I could take the same prompt and get something better.

Finally, if your article looks like it was generated by AI, AI is still frankly not really at the point where long form output of it on a technical concept is quite a safe thing to consume for deep understanding. It still makes a lot of little errors fairly pervasively, and significant errors not only still occur often, but when they do they tend to corrupt the entire rest of the output as the attention mechanism basically causes the AI to justify its errors with additional correct-sounding output. And if your article sounds like it was generated with AI, am I justified in assuming that you've prevented this from happening with your own expertise? Statistically, probably not.

Disliking the "default tone" of the AI may seem irrational but there are perfectly rational reasons to develop that distaste. I suppose we should be grateful that LLM's "default voice" has been developed into something that wasn't used by many humans prior to them staking a claim on it. I've heard a few people complain about getting tagged as AIs for using emdashes or bullet points prior to AIs, but it's not a terribly common complaint.