Uuuugh. The AI smell is strong on this comment.
Please use AI for loads of things, but also pretty-please keep it out of inter-human discussions.
Another:
It is not “this simplified, kindergarten-level explanation”, it is “this explicit, thoughtful one”
In this case I suspect the poster used GPT (looks like OpenAI) to generate the initial response and then edited it.
Your reply meets said criteria.
So far as I can tell, AI prose checking - at least vs the frontier models - has been little better than vibe-based. Which, well, that's just another way of saying Red doesn't like Blue. And we got enough of that.
There are plenty of them that will give you a number, Pangram is a commonly-used one. Of course, whether they actually work well is a different matter. In my experience they have a huge false positive rates. I haven't tested the inverse.
The it's-not-X-it's-Y formula is the most visible tell. It's overused, being used, I think, 3 times, with 2 being slightly less obvious. This-was-X-and-now-it's-Y is also overrepresented.
It's still not a bad comment. We can discuss it just fine. What we can't do now is assume this is entirely an EastLondonCoder's text, so we can't use it to form an opinion of that person (whether good or bad) based on its content (since we don't know how much of it comes from that person, and how much from the machine). Some will also form an opinion (good or bad) about the poster simply because they used AI.
That's an Internet discourse of 2026, in my experience. I wonder what's next.