Comment by nzealand

> the author broke a social contract by probably putting less effort into writing this than I did reading it.

I seriously doubt that.

First, the author documented a substantial effort (testing, emails, references to documentation.)

Second, I also used AI to evaluate if this was written by AI, and my AI said it was not.

> Broken sentences that a model wouldn't produce. "The value is while you are on ChatGPT and tied to your ChatGPT account" is missing a word. "Loading that code, sends __obi to OpenAI" has a comma splitting subject from verb. "By the virtue of loading the tag the identifier is disclosed" is non-idiomatic. LLMs are fluent to a fault; these are the fingerprints of a fast human writer, possibly a non-native English speaker.

Third, I read it. Whilst it is not well written, it is succinct. It is novel. It has a few detailed references. It lacks many of the hallmarks of AI. It makes a number of novel yet falsifiable claims.

I challenge you to come up with a blog post with these qualities that can be created in under 15 minutes via AI.

While I commend you on actually using an AI tool to validate your assumption, rather than simply hurling AI slop accusations based purely on vibes, I do think you and your AI tool are likely incorrect.