So yeah it was written using AI

Bert Hubert confronts a growing habit of dismissing valid arguments simply because an AI-detection tool (Pangram) flags partial AI authorship. He acknowledges deep opposition to GenAI - describing its harms, public warnings that it has damaged his profession, and a hope the bubble will burst - yet insists that knowing a text was written with or by AI does not, by itself, invalidate its substantive claims. Choosing not to engage with AI-assisted work is a legitimate personal stance, and criticizing ethical choices is fair, but declaring an argument wrong solely because of its mode of composition is a rhetorical shortcut and a cop-out.

He warns Pangram can be wrong and urges critics to evaluate and rebut the content rather than attacking the method of writing. Weaponizing detection for "gotchas" degrades discourse and avoids dealing with actual points. Hubert recommends people do their own writing because writing clarifies thinking, frames this note as a follow-up to an earlier commentary, and calls for intellectual rigor: arguments should be judged on merit, not on whether a language model helped produce the words.