Interesting points! though I don't follow them all.

> 1st: the presumption that AI generated text is actually unsuccessful, rather than proliferating broadly unchallenged today

I can only talk about HN. If you think this is proliferating broadly on HN itself, I'd like to see such links. Assuming it's "broadly", they should be easy to find.

> 2nd: the disposition that negative attitudes towards AI text are unjustified discrirmination, rather than working as a strong latent predictor of low-effort content

I don't understand this bit.

> 3rd: the assumption that human writing is reliably doled benefits, rather than some poor proxy of it (winning the social contest for claiming authenticity)

Sorry, but I don't understand this either.

> only a very small minority of humans actually successfully identify AI generated text at rates ≥ Pangram.

That's not what we seem to be seeing. I do agree that there's a wide spectrum and a lot of wrong guesses.

> It's not uncommon to see bots abusing this gap for their own success

I'd like to see specific links of this on HN itself. If it's not uncommon, they should be easy to find.