Anti-intellectuallism is everywhere, especially amongst the intellectuals. The latest bent of this is to ask if an AI wrote this, rather than engage with the substance of what's written.

AI writing is anti-intellectual. It demands the time of thousands of people to read when they could be reading something with actual meaning. You're demanding scholars to read comic books all day in case they have content worth engaging with (spoiler: they don't).

> The latest bent of this is to ask if an AI wrote this, rather than engage with the substance of what's written.

Just an half hour ago, TomasBM wrote in another thread [1] why people first want to filter out AI slop, which IMHO fits perfectly:

> Getting those verbose, AI-authored walls of text is very annoying, especially when you're expected to thoroughly review it. It's like a denial-of-service attack on the human mind.

To that, I'd add my personal take: I go to HN, Bluesky, Reddit or Twitter to engage in meaningful conversation with other people (ranked in inverse likelihood of coming across sloppypasta). If I wanted to talk to a robot, I'd prompt ChatGPT myself. When others use AI for more than translation, this violates this core assumption of how human communication, how society has worked for all of human history.

Unfortunately, and I've been on the receiving end of this myself, anything longer or more substantive than a tweet will immediately evoke the "is this AI" assumption, and it's gotten worse as ChatGPT et al managed to eliminate the usual "tells".

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48743798