It’s not AI-generated. I’m the author. I wrote it in about an hour this morning, then spent another twenty minutes or so fixing a few mistakes. There are probably still a few more in there :)
There are AI tells all over the article unlike two previous articles I saw on the blog.
It's a daily hacker news coal post regardless: "see how I can't be replaced because I do some more things". There's nothing new in it and some rehashing of this argument gets posted to HN ten times a week.
The article is entirely handwritten. As a non-native speaker, I'm pretty proud of how it turned out, even if, in a long article like this, I have to use AI tools like Grammarly and WordReference here and there to sound more fluent and natural. There are probably still plenty of mistakes in it which, if anything, is further proof that a human wrote it. I'm sorry you didn't find it interesting, and I hope that future submissions will better meet your standards.
