> they do this intentionally as a way to denigrate all AI writing — even when the content is good/interesting

If people only cared about AI for fiction writing, this would be fine. "Good/interesting" writing can be tolerated when nothing is at stake.

For nonfiction writing however, AI is rhetorically neutered. LLMs have no inherent authority/ethos without citing non-AI works. LLMs do not possess logic/logos that is rooted in the real, human experience. There is no emotional/pathos appeal that can be made between a human and a nonliving entity.

Aristotle et. al. would have considered most AI writing a waste of digital parchment. How would you feel if I answered this question with Qwen or GLM instead of hand-writing it?