This recurring invocation of AI as a rhetorical bludgeon has drifted well beyond the bounds of reason and into the realm of wearying absurdity. One can, of course, acknowledge the legitimate and increasingly sophisticated role that artificial intelligence occupies within modern discourse, yet the reflexive deployment of such an accusation at the mere sight of structured, articulate prose suggests not discernment, but a curious aversion to coherence itself. Must every instance of fluency now be treated as suspect? The charge, repeated so casually, carries all the hallmarks of an unimaginative and rather indolent dismissal. If one is genuinely persuaded that a thread has been conjured into existence through algorithmic means, then the path of least resistance remains elegantly simple: pass it by in silence. Similarly, if my own contributions strike you as the product of some unseen machine intelligence, you are under no obligation whatsoever to engage with them. Discretion, in such cases, would seem the more dignified option. It is worth noting that, in another thread, johng saw fit to characterise me as an AI construct, a conclusion that appeared to arise less from evidence than from an inability to marshal a coherent rebuttal. Rumak echoed this sentiment, not out of analytical necessity, but because my remarks proved inconvenient to his position, and you, in turn, lent your support to both assertions. What emerges is a pattern that is difficult to ignore: the AI accusation as a convenient discursive escape valve, deployed in lieu of substantive engagement by those who, for whatever reason, find themselves unequipped to meet argument with argument. 🤯
