I provided you evidence but you ignored it, so I'll restate it. In the article that we're all here to discuss, it talks about an unpublished novel that is unpu

I provided you evidence but you ignored it, so I'll restate it. In the article that we're all here to discuss, it talks about an unpublished novel that is unpublished specifically because expert publishers couldn't determine if it was AI. I'll quote from the source that the article references: > In an email obtained by the outlet, Hodgman said that the “incredible” manuscript “dazzled” publishers around the world, but they failed to authenticate the evolution of the writing. The email adds that while they vetted the submission and were reassured that AI tools weren’t used, they could no longer substantiate any claims. It's a dazzling manuscript according to publishers around the world. Seasoned publishers couldn't be certain if it was AI. This is literally an article about the exact thing you're arguing against - I can't be more specific with my evidence. Ultimately, I feel you're not trying to come to a correct conclusion together like a healthy debate should. You spent half a sentence dismissing what I was saying and then paragraphs talking about how certain you are about your own opinions on AI writing, whilst providing no real argument or evidence beyond rhetorical questions. That's not really what I'm here for, sorry.