For me the core of the anti AI argument has nothing to do with form and style - although that is how AI writing can often be identified.
Its much simpler - if you cant be bothered to write it, I cant be bothered to read it. There is no communication happening otherwise. I can enter a prompt on my own.
There are some points where I disagree with that argument. It comes down to where you draw the line on human effort.
You're basically saying that hammering a nail with a regular hammer and hammering it with a power tool aren't the same act. Let me put it this way. I don't like fully AI generated writing either. But if I read something and can see traces that a human wrote the first draft and then refined it, then I don't really care if AI was involved.
It's just a question of where the effort is placed. And the real key is whether the right "keywords" are there or not. If you've actually used AI, you'll know that it's a layering tool. The output varies a lot depending on the layers of input you give it. No matter how much I prompt it about functional programming, I'm not going to get results that are deep or particularly good. This piece seems like someone put a fair amount of care into it, but I guess you see it differently.
Honestly, if the people who taught me or explained things to me had written at this level, I might agree with you. But most of the professors and people I've encountered didn't write this well this easily.