I don't have an opinion on whether it's correct or not. I see AI writing, I stop reading. When compared to human-authored prose, AI writing is much more likely to be convincing-but-wrong. I don't need to be ingesting stuff engineered to be believable, with correctness only as a secondary concern.
If it's correct, it's usually because a better source has already written it correctly, or because it's trivial to somebody who knows what they're talking about.
AI writing is a sign that the author either doesn't know the material, doesn't want to write it, or both. Because distinguishing "too lazy to write it" and "too stupid to fact-check it properly" is very difficult on my end as a reader, it's better to be safe than sorry. There's no sense in exposing my malleable wetware to slop of unknown provenance.
There has been no shortage of human authors writing about this topic. I don't know who "Philip Pieogger" is, so I have no reason to prefer him as a co-author.
