Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "problem" is that people—the ones that actually care whether or not something was written by AI—don't just want to spot text that was generated by AI (like in your examples). They also want to spot text that was re-written by AI. Before I explain the great big difference (which you probably already understand, just bear with me), know that the folks who are most up in arms about it are authors. They see their art…
> MC: "You call that a knife?" First of all, I found this pretty funny. And yes, you may use AI to update your work in a "collaborative" style. And yes, if "they never know the difference", then sure. But as I mentioned in my comment, the issue is that I think you're seeing this from a pretty specific lens - authors as a group that hate AI and anything to do with it, but audiences can't tell the difference, etc. Thos…
Yet here we are: The mere accusation of a work being touched in any way by AI is all it takes for publishers to drop it like they were just handed molten iron.
AI is being treated by publishers and traditional authors like the fruit of the poisonous tree. This won't stop anyone from using AI to aid their work in various degrees, but what it will do is force everyone to lie about it.