@KamilMaciorowski that's kinda my point. It's hard to represent the community while refusing to work for them. As much as some don't like my words, one of my major concerns is that it's hard for a strike inflicting harm on the community to also be for the community. It's hard to say "I'm doing this for you" while slapping a person in the face.

@Ramhound that's all based on an assumption that SE will do nothing about the problem, or that moderators are the only ones who can fix the problem. I believe neither of those things. There's some pretty good logic in not communicating with moderators how SE intend to handle the issue that follows these lines. Leaking such information would be counter productive. Claiming that moderators are the only possible solution here just doesn't add up. I repeat I AM NOT AGAINST BANNING USERS FOR AI CONTENT. I'm against moderators doing that work.

@harrymc how precisely to SE need Moderators to be a part of the process when such lovely tools exist that can be applied pragmatically by SE themselves? SE's decision to stop moderators taking this issue into their own hands is only strengthened in light of such tools! Let SE do the work using better tools and stop using moderators from performing tasks which they are unlikely to be good at.

@Ramhound no I didn't but I'll rephrase.. Moderators seem to be under the impression they are the only ones who can fix this problem. That's not the case. Moderators are still being asked to act on VLQ content just as they always have. But the decision to go further than that by either banning users or deleting content specifically because it is AI generated is in question. SE were asking moderators to take further action, they are now asking moderators not to because that backfired. NOBODY is saying we should leave VLQ content on the site. If it's VLQ then act as we always have done.

@markalex then see my final two sections of this answer. If this is truly the case then the truth of it won't be hidden. By taking this action you don't give SE opportunity to deal with the problem in another way that they haven't told you about.

@gronostaj it isn't so convincing to me because not only did I see similar answers long before ChatGPT, I had the misfortune of hiring someone liable to write them. A truly weird mix of being able to paraphrase and reword anything without any capability to understand a word of it. As I say, confirmation bias plays terrible tricks on people on this topic.... where as impossible answer rates don't really need moderator attention. SE should be perfectly capable of identifying those programmatically.