AI tools make different types of mistakes than humans, and that's a problem. We've spent eons creating systems to mitigate and correct human mistakes, which we don't have for the more subtle types of mistakes AI tends to make.

AI gets things wrong ("hallucinates") much more often than actual subject matter experts. This is disingenuous.

A serious one yes.

But why would a serious person claim that they wrote this without AI when it's obvious they used it?!

Using any tool is fine, but someone bragging about not having used a tool they actually used should make you suspicious about the amount of care that went to their work.

Fortunately, we can't just get rid of humans (right?) so we have to use them _somehow_

If AI is used by “fire and forget”, sure - there’s a good chance of slop.

But if you carefully review and iterate the contributions of your writers - human or otherwise - you get a quality outcome.

Absolutely.

But why would you trust the author to have done that when they are lying in a very obvious way about not using AI?

Using AI is fine, it's a tool, it's not bad per se. But claiming very loud you didn't use that tool when it's obvious you did is very off-putting.

That’s fine. Write it out yourself and then ask an AI how it could be improved with a diff. Now you’ve given it double human review (once in creation then again reviewing the diff) and single AI review.

That's one review with several steps and some AI assistance. Checking your work twice is not equivalent to it having it reviewed by two people, part of reviewing your work (or the work of others) is checking multiple times and taking advantage of whatever tools are at your disposal.

The point was to bookend your human review around automated. Not stamp out a blueprint.