Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did you include that list of sponsors at the bottom of your post? What's with the "contingent on employment status or ideological alignment" bit about? That's not been mentioned anywhere else so far. Were those parts (or indeed your entire comment) written with the help of an LLM?
The post is quite clear? They call on the sponsors to stop funding ruby central, and the employment status bit is a clear concern extending from ruby central’s supposed takeover. Read the post more clearly before accusing someone of LLM usage. And even if it is, they are still valid points to be discussed, as opposed to trying to bury it with an LLM accusation.
If that's what happened then it's bad because it leaves people who read the comment confused - hence my questions asking about those.
If the author confirms that those pieces I asked about serve an intentional purpose then I don't care if they used an LLM or not.
My problem isn't with using LLMs to help write comments - there are plenty of reasonable reasons for doing that (like English as a second language). My problem is letting an LLM invent content that doesn't accurately represent the situation or reflect the LLM user's own position.
(The author could also say "I didn't use an LLM", which notably they haven't done elsewhere on this thread yet.)