It would be nice if you shared some supporting evidence rather than turning a guess into a definitive statement.

It's clearly AI, both from the image (look at the text) and the vacuous nothingness of the ChatGPT-speak.

If you believe that, it’s best to flag the submission and move on rather than pollute the comments. This is the equivalent of posting “this is a badly written article”. It doesn’t add any value.

▲

antonvs a day ago | parent | next [-]

If an article is badly written or AI-generated, there's value in that being pointed out in the comments. It can save people wasting time, and ideally, discourage people from posting low quality content. That's a large part of the point of a site like this.

▲

albedoa a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> It doesn’t add any value.

You don't speak for us. If you are going to demand supporting evidence for obvious statements, then you can present supporting evidence for your spurious claims about value.

▲

swidi 18 hours ago | parent [-]

So you can talk shit with zero consequences? How wonderful for you, and how terrible for everyone around you.

	▲	albedoa 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think you meant to reply to me.

▲

Brendinooo a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> No dining room. No servers. No storefront. No customers walking through the door. Just a kitchen.

> No ownership. No accountability. Just assembly-line cooking with zero connection to customers.

> No loyal regulars. No servers to smooth over problems. Just angry reviews that destroyed virtual brands forever.

Pretty common pattern these days.

That, plus the hashtags at the end (unless Substack uses those and I was unaware of it), plus the fact that we know he's using AI in some capacity because of the feature images - it's a reasonable conclusion to draw.