Wild that the messenger is more important than the message. No wonder politics is such a shitshow these days.

The messenger tells you a lot about the message with AI articles.

It being written by AI instead of a human is an indication the writer didn't care enough about the information being communicated to communicate it themselves and if they didn't care enough to put effort into writing it and making sure it is actually good why should I spend my time reading it?

It's also an early indication that the content won't be that good too so it's a convenient signal that reading it will likely be a waste of time. Just look at the article here. Lots of fluff and some completely vapid praise of some of the carry systems that put a significant load into the necks of the carrier. We know that's not good for you it's just convenient when you have low tech.

If you read the objections you’ll see they are about content (or lack of it) not the producer of the content.

Perhaps you are unable to tell the difference, but for others reading this sort of ersatz thought is like a boot stamping on a human face – for ever.

Now who's being a Veruca Salt? Everyone in this thread is clearly literally talking about the message.

A slot machine that rolls sentences based on statistical weights isn’t a “messenger” and it’s output isn’t a “message.”