Are we reading the same thread?

You said AI works were easily distinguishable via em-dashes and "not this, but that"

I said I have witnessed humans using that metric accuse other humans here on hackernews. Q.E.D.

You've asserted that they are easily distinguished. Practitioners in the field fail to distinguish using the same criteria. Is that not dispositive? Seems like it to me.

I claimed much earlier in the thread "I think there's demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs" which is consistent with "I think all the humans I know and all the LLMs I've interacted with exist on a multidimensional continuum of intelligence with significant overlap."

Two ways of saying the same thing.

Both of them suggesting that sometimes you may be able to tell it's the output of an AI or Human, sometimes not. Sometimes the things coming out of the AI or the Human might be smart in a way we recognize, sometimes not. And recognizing that humans already exist on quite a broad scale of intelligences in many axes.