if an owner/developer is content with publishing a site that looks similar to all other sloppily built ai interfaces, it usually means that the same amount of care has gone into the product/backend.
That's a pretty big stretch. I'm a very competent backend developer and product owner, but a bang-average front developer. It's okay to lean on AI for your weaknesses.
It's 2026 and people have had a lot of exposure to AI writing and have developed views and preferences. That's equally a genie that can't go back in the bottle.
Regardless, when people claim not to have generated something they demonstrably did, that damages their credibility and suggests the document is unreliable.
I guess this website should get its own entry in its list then. I don't need to read unreviewed slopcopy.