> Even if the conclusion is broadly correct, that doesn't mean the reasoning used to get there is consistent.
This is the conclusion of a reply that focused entirely on critiquing OP's style/AI use instead of their reasoning? Ironic.
If someone generates a ten thousand word slop essay with AI, do I have a moral obligation to critique its reasoning step by step instead of merely pointing out its origin?
If I do, it just so happens I have a ten thousand word rebuttal for you…
Poe's Law strikes again!