[ziddoap]

>Your inability to tell when things are AI doesn't mean other people can't.

I didn't even comment on whether this article is AI or not. My point is that it is absurd to point at a single word as proof of something being written by AI.

[ajkjk]

well it's that phrase, not just the word, although the word is a tell. And it's not absurd. It is absurd to think it's absurd. You are being ignorant.

[ziddoap]

It's absurd to think a single word (the comment didn't even say phrase), or even a single phrase, is evidence of AI.

>"If it's interesting and/or you already have a relationship, which their publisher _likely_ does, it's pretty easy to get an article written."

Woah, you must be AI. You used "and/or" and "likely"! (See how absurd that is?)

[ajkjk]

You are being intentionally obtuse.

It's not the word on its own, it's the word in context: in a news article in a sentence like that one. It's not a 100% given, but it's fairly strong evidence given a basic understanding of modern language informed by the era we're in. Of course it could be a journalist emulating AI for some reason. But the signal here is quite strong.