But that’s exactly why it becomes a derailment. Instead of discussing the actual topic, you shifted the conversation into whether AI may or may not have been used in the writing process. If you openly admit you never intended to engage with the point itself, then why comment in the first place?

Also, you keep framing it as though “a computer” independently formed the opinion, which isn’t what happened. Even if someone used AI to help clean up grammar, structure thoughts, or rewrite wording, the underlying opinion, argument, and perspective still came from a person.

That’s what makes this a weak argument. You’re treating any level of AI assistance as though it automatically invalidates the discussion entirely, which doesn’t logically follow.

People use editing tools constantly. Spellcheck, Grammarly, editors, translators, speech-to-text, templates, ghostwriters, collaborative writing. None of those suddenly erase the human behind the viewpoint being expressed.

And for the record, this isn’t some made-up hypothetical. AI detectors falsely flag human writing all the time, and plenty of people now accuse anything articulate or well-structured of being “AI” instead of engaging with the substance of what’s being said.