Agreed. I think I'm getting more fatigue from the AI slop callouts than the actual AI slop.

It's at a point where I just flag it. FWIW, the callouts are against the guidelines:

> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

Just pretend "this is AI slop" is also in the list. Don't complain about that; complain about the information being wrong or something else insightful. Discuss the conclusions that were included in the article. Assume (also per the guidelines) that the author reviewed the article before posting; they are signing off on its validity and therefore any callouts, AI-related or otherwise, should be calling that validity into question rather than simply saying that a particular tool was used for getting the words on the page.

▲

alance 3 days ago | parent [-]

Except my 1-sentence comment was not an AI callout that said: "Hey this is AI slop". I validate the content of the article but express personal disappointment in the AI writing style.

I admit it is perhaps unkind of me to not provide the laundry list of AI-tells in their article, but I see their response to me as being a direct lie ("I haven't used AI to write this post, that's just my style") so what explanation do I owe them?

▲

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Except my 1-sentence comment was not an AI callout that said: "Hey this is AI slop".

Not literally, but this was the thesis of your comment, regardless of your four words of validation.

> I admit it is perhaps unkind of me to not provide the laundry list of AI-tells in their article

Please don't do this. It doesn't matter.

> what explanation do I owe them?

What explanation do they owe you?

	▲	alance 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Uhh? I didn't ask anyone for an explanation.