> please don't make it out like a throwaway "AI bad" argument.

The issue isn't whether AI is good or bad or neither or both. The issue is whether the author used AI or not. And you were actually the one who suggested that the author's alleged use of AI made the article less trustworthy. The only reason you mentioned it was to malign the author; you would never say, for example, "The author obviously used a spellchecker, which affects how trustworthy I find the article."

> If you think this is good writing then you're welcome to your opinion

I didn't say it's good writing. To the contrary, I said, "the writer just has a somewhat annoying blogging style, or lack of style."

The debate was never about the author's style but rather about the author's identity, i.e., human or machine.

> Textbooks don't contain section headers every few paragraphs.

Of course they do. I just pulled some off my shelves to look.

Not all textbooks do, but some definitely do.

I said it affects how trustworthy I find the article, when considered in combination with other aspects of this situation that don't add up to me.

After going through my technical bookshelf I can't find a single example that follows this header/bullet style. And meanwhile I have seen countless posts that are known to be AI-assisted which do.

Apparently we exist in different realities, and are never going to agree on this, so there is no point in discussing further.