The author argues against dismissing articles based on AI authorship, stating that the use of AI does not invalidate the content's points and urging engagement with the arguments instead.
As of this week, I’m suddenly seeing people dismiss points made in otherwise readable articles because Pangram says these were (partially) AI authored. I hate the origins and consequences of GenAI more than almost anyone. I can’t wait for the bubble to burst also. I presented in Amsterdam on how AI has killed my professional field.
AND YET.
If you discover that an opinion piece was authored with or by GenAI, by all means feel free not to engage with it.
# So yeah it was written using AI - Bert Hubert's writings
Source: [https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/so-yeah-it-is-written-using-ai/](https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/so-yeah-it-is-written-using-ai/)
As of this week, I’m suddenly seeing people dismiss points made in otherwise readable articles because[Pangram](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangram_(AI_detector))says these were \(partially\) AI authored\. I hate the origins and consequences of GenAI[more than almost anyone](https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/ai-for-decision-makers/)\. I can’t wait[for the bubble to burst also](https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/an-ai-premortem/)\. I presented in Amsterdam on[how AI has killed my professional field](https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/kunsten92-paradiso-2026/)\.
AND YET\.
If you discover that an opinion piece was authored with or by GenAI, by all means feel free not to engage with it\. This is a fine**personal**choice, one I’ve also taken for[code contributions to my software](https://github.com/berthubert/tkconv/blob/main/README.md#meedoen)\.
But what you can not do is state that the premise of the article is wrong BECAUSE the text was \(co\)authored by AI\. That’s not how it works\. That is a cop out\. \(Also, Pangram[might be wrong](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangram_(AI_detector)#Accuracy)\!\)
No matter how angry you \(justifiably\!\) are about Large Language Models messing up the world, their use does not invalidate points people are trying to make\.
So please, stop doing “gotchas\!” on folks you discover were probably using AI\.
Feel entirely free to ignore their piece, or perhaps lambaste the author for doing things you think are unethical\. Up to you\.
But do NOT use AI as a shortcut to facilely dismiss the points people are trying to make\.
If you engage, rebuke the content\. Not the mode of writing\.
Thanks\.
PS: I really recommend doing your own writing if you can\. Because[writing is thinking](https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/ai-for-decision-makers/#:~:text=People%20have%20long%20observed)\.
> This is a followup to the earlier piece[Yeah, it is on YouTube or LinkedIn and has cookies](https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/yeah-it-is-on-youtube-linkedin/), which makes a similar point about content served in ways you might not like\.
A commentary arguing that the focus should be on whether content contains original thinking rather than whether AI was used, emphasizing that tools do not replace human judgment.
An article discussing the controversy over a prize-winning short story that was accused of being generated by AI, and the broader implications for authorship and detection in the age of large language models.
The article critiques the concept of AI-generated text and the effectiveness of watermarking for proving AI involvement, arguing that it may not capture human contribution and highlights ambiguity in defining AI slop.
The article argues that AI should not be used for writing as it bypasses the thinking process, recommending instead that AI be used for feedback and preparation to enhance productivity.
The author describes using AI to generate questions and a deliberately poor first draft as a technique to overcome writer's block and memory issues, resulting in faster writing without any AI-written text in the final product.