(First, thanks for this reply, which was nicer and more receptive than I was expecting!)
We don't want LLM-generated content any more than you do, and I'm confident that the vast majority of the community agrees. The problem is that there are lots of nuances yet to be worked out, so we shouldn't be heavy-handed.
Is it ok, for example, for a non-native speaker to use an LLM to fix up their English? I'd say it's clear that HN would be better off with what they originally wrote; non-native speakers are totally welcome, nearly always do just fine, and we want to hear people in their own voice, not passed through a mechanical filter. But someone who doesn't know HN very well and is nervous about their English couldn't know that.
People need to be treated gently. The cost of being hostile to newcomers, instead of focusing on what's interesting about their work, drowns out the benefit of enforcing conventions. It drives away people we ought to embrace. The community's zeal for protecting HN is admirable, but can easily turn unhelpful. The biggest threat to this site is not that its quality will collapse (it has been relatively stable for years now*), but that it will die due to lack of new users.
Like I said, I'm sure you didn't mean to have that effect. The problem is that most of us underestimate such effects in our own comments, so we end up propagating it without meaning to. The fact that several users replied indicating that they felt this way (edit: I mean that they felt your original post was too hostile) is a strong indicator.
* not that it's all that great, but these things are relative