This case is interesting, because it seems obvious that the AI accusation is just plain wrong. The article is riddled with the kind of grammatical and spelling mistakes that humans regularly make but that a modern AI would never make.

▲

83 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That could easily be part of their prompt. I just did a quick test telling Copilot to "add a few spelling and grammar mistakes to look like a human wrote it" and it does a reasonably convincing job.

	▲	bryanlarsen an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The errors are more than superficial; few authors would be willing to have AI screw up their work enough to invert the meaning of some of their sentences. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47169256

▲

exmadscientist 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's also very easy to paste a paragraph in to a chatbot and ask it to revise it. Or ask it to write an introduction.

I don't really have a problem with that use of AI.

But one of the costs is reputational: potential readers are now going to assume AI wrote the whole article, fairly or unfairly. That's a consideration writers have to weigh before choosing to do this.