If you really did spend days on research and methodology (which, to be clear, I'm not denying), that just makes it all the more disappointing that you decided to cap it all off with a long AI generated article. The article is what I'm focusing on because it's what you expect other people to actually read, and it's what you submitted here.

Ultimately, I'm just trying to get you to understand how this decision undermines the presumed goal of trying to convince the anti-AI crowd that they're wrong. It's simply not fair to expect humans to engage with the article in good faith when the article itself was not written by a human in good faith, regardless of its contents or the numbers it's based on. If you still disagree, so be it, I have nothing else to argue.

And for the record, I didn't engage with the methodology itself or its merits because I don't believe this question can be answered via an automated statistical approach, or really any sort of objective approach. The only way to truly evaluate the quality of AI generated code is for a skilled developer who is at least moderately familiar with the codebase to carefully analyze each commit, understanding what it does and looking for dumb mistakes that a human likely wouldn't have made in the same situation. But it's very unlikely that anyone will waste their time on that, and the conclusion would still be subjective anyway.