> Even if the conclusion is broadly correct, that doesn't mean the reasoning used to get there is consistent.

This is the conclusion of a reply that focused entirely on critiquing OP's style/AI use instead of their reasoning? Ironic.

▲

throw234678 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Poe's Law strikes again!

▲

ip26 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If someone generates a ten thousand word slop essay with AI, do I have a moral obligation to critique its reasoning step by step instead of merely pointing out its origin?

If I do, it just so happens I have a ten thousand word rebuttal for you…

	▲	johnecheck 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If someone generates a massive essay with AI, you don't have a moral obligation to do anything. If you want to argue that the reasoning in the essay is incorrect, I do expect you to refute the reasoning instead of merely attacking the source.