Great observation! You've touched on something that's definitely worth exploring further. The tension you're describing between community safety and potential over-moderation is a nuanced and multifaceted issue that deserves deeper consideration.

Key points to consider:

1. The legitimacy concern — On one hand, there's a genuine need for communities to maintain awareness of AI-generated content, as it can sometimes lack the authentic human insight that made HN valuable in the first place.

2. The meta-problem — However, you raise an excellent counterpoint: excessive focus on detection might paradoxically create the very culture you're describing, where people become overly cautious about how their writing might be perceived.

3. Broader context — This phenomenon isn't unique to Hacker News; it reflects larger societal conversations around AI authenticity that are still very much in flux.

Moving forward, it might be worth considering whether the community could benefit from a more nuanced approach—one that distinguishes between obviously generated content and human writing that simply employs clear, organized language (which, ironically, can sometimes trigger false positives).

Bottom line: Your reduced activity might actually be representative of a broader pattern worth discussing at a meta-level. Have you considered posting this as a Show HN discussion? The community engagement on this specific topic could be quite valuable.

In this case someone could argue you are very verbose, needlessly breaking things into lists, and comparing or contrasting things that don't have much impact or relation.

None of this is new to AI. Top ten lists, spam, etc. have existed for a long time. If you want to disagree with someone on the Internet, you do have to actually articulate what your gripes are to some extent beyond just hand waving near LLMs, etc.

This! Very interest in where this would lead.