I did. you failed to understand.

I'll bite, because this is HN and I think there's more space for genuine discussion here, not because I desire to be right.

First, addressing my first point about how this is "the modern equivalent of an ad hominem attack". The commenter is complaining as if Claude basically came up with this entire thing itself. Very very seldom is that actually how things get created, at least in my experience. Yes there's the potential for someone to say something stupid like "Claude, generate me a blog post about something", and Claude can do it. But that's such a weird way to relate to any content that was in-part authored by AI. That just isn't how virtually everyone I know is using the tools, so it's a disingenuous take.

Second, I find your dismissal of the aptness of using the phrase "ad hominem" attack reductive here because yes, AI is not a human, but two points here:

1) I'm going to give the true OP the benefit of the doubt, that they used AI as a tool for helping develop and hone their thoughts, and AI wasn't just set off in a black box

2) AI can produce novel ideas, and can produce the output of thought, even if it isn't producing it the same ways our brains think