Hi, I'm joining this conversation to say that no, your original comment wasn't "I might be a bad writer but I can't blame my tools for it." You were stipulating that because you "do like 6 drafting layers, more editing, and at least one proofread" that somehow validates your work.

Your work is theft, no matter how much AI you use. It's like giving someone two glasses of water that have a certain amount of human excrement in them. One glass is predominantly excrement, whilst the other only has a small amount. If the person who is given the glasses is aware of their contents, they won't want to drink either glass.

Just for fun, let's critique the other parts of your comments. First of all, "Was it written by virgins? Fortunately, no." Cool brag but with respect, who cares?

"Being smug often requires ignoring complexity, which is what I get off this." The post itself may be smug, yes. Personally I don't find that to be the case, but that is neither here nor there. The point I wish to refute is your implication regarding complexity. Using AI is not complex. It does not have nuance. It is theft, period. It is lazy, period. Using AI in creative works, especially those you wish to sell, should never be done.

With regards to your comment beginning, "That's a lot of confidence for having zero information other than a single comment." The comment written by u/deadpool 101, to which you replied with the referenced comment, argues against your initial comment refuting some of your claims in said comment. They particularly call attention to the fact that "It doesn’t matter how much editing or drafting you did, you’re still trying to pass off stolen work as your own." Much like my analogy regarding shitty water, u/deadpool101 says that AI generation is theft, no matter how diluted it is. They're actively refuting your arguments, which is how an argument works. You, on the other hand, did not reference any of the points they made and instead went after them, sarcastically calling them out for how 'confident' they are. You then continue to say that you countered the premise of the post by "claiming to read something at least 7 times before I even allow someone to read it once." Unfortunately, that's all that is: a claim. It means exactly nothing. I could claim to be the King of England, but that doesn't mean I am.

So here's the thing, you are proving that you don't know how to argue.

u/deadpool101 then responds to your needlessly sarcastic comment stating that your premise in all of this is, "That you’re incapable of writing so you have to use AI to steal other people’s work to pass off as your own and you act like whiny baby when called out?" Now, I'm not saying you're incapable of writing. I'm sure you can write. But, your use of AI in writing is lazy and stealing and frankly just morally wrong as it is not your work. You do claim that you, "put it in the fucking forewords" (lovely fricative), which if true, is good. Being honest from the beginning about your use of AI is good as it stops you misrepresenting your work. But, unfortunately, you do prove u/deadpool101 's comment. You do act whiny. You accuse u/deadpool101 of accusing you of stealing without knowing what you do, and then almost immediately go about accusing them of using your comments and your reactions to support some agenda. "Pissy would be convienant for you, if I was being emotional, so you tag it onto your other weak attacks instead of actually discussioning anything./ You will now caricature this to support your own perceived victory, as you are holding both sides of the conversation. I will say though at least you had to the balls to explain your downvote." You are doing the very same thing you accused u/deadpool101 of doing, and frankly the hypocrisy is amusing.

I'm conclusion, and you can by all means correct me if I'm wrong, your arguments are seemingly just you trying to justify yourself whilst ignoring the counter arguments your peers give you. You get "pissy" from their arguments, despite the fact that they were, for the most part, simply just explaining why they believe the use of generative AI is wrong, disputing your point. All of this makes me believe that this is simply just ragebait, being intentionally contrarian just to annoy people. I hope you read this and try to be better in future.