> if most of a user or author's writing is consistently human-generated, then I think we are very happy giving them the benefit of the doubt if one article or snippet flags the actually good ai detector

I would agree to that approach.

But that didn't happen here. Nobody has done that due diligence and folks are just blindly accusing. The author has published for many years. That's what I'm calling out.

> This notion that somehow the authors of slop are victims is complete nonsense.

Strawman? I didn't claim that or anything close to it. I also find the prevalence of slop writing hugely annoying.