First, "ai-generated" is a huge assumption without any proof. The article could've been only spell-checked, or proof-read, or assisted by AI - you don't know. If you really think it was "ai-generated", prove it by providing the prompts that generated it. Lacking that, your comment is baseless.
Second, the author is whoever writes the prompts, anyway.
> they have a very predictable markdown structure (these 5-6 word summary headers before every paragraph), a predictable length, and of course full of em dashes.
Totally irrelevant peeving over form with nothing of substance.
> Immediately removes credibility... you're being duped... to get traffic to their site... you fell for it.
I don't know what generated that, but it's not an honest person. On the other hand, the original article is excellent.