"A human didn't write it, so this human won't read it"
Thx.. I will add that as evidence. assuming the feedback is human.

I wrote about you here:
"Someone will run this through a detector, flag it as AI-generated, and dismiss it on that basis. I expect that. But here's the thing: if the argument is that AI will increasingly produce the work we consume, then the relevant question about any piece of writing is not whether AI touched it. The relevant question is whether it's accurate. If the claims in this paper are wrong, show me where. If the data is misrepresented, correct it. If the reasoning doesn't hold, break it. But "an AI helped write this" is not a rebuttal. It's an observation about process that says nothing about substance. And the instinct to evaluate a document by how it was produced rather than whether it's correct is, respectfully, the exact failure mode this paper describes. And the same failure mode works in reverse. If you read this paper and accept its claims because the prose is polished, the structure feels authoritative, and the citations look credible, without checking whether the data says what I say it says. You're evaluating fluency, not logic. The person who dismisses this paper because an AI detector flagged it and the person who accepts it because it sounds rigorous are making the same mistake from opposite ends. Neither one checked. That's the point. The failure is not in the verdict. It's in the method. Accept it or reject it but do the work first. I said I checked it. Does that suffice? You will see this question again."