I ran the same check, and was saddened, because I agree with his point of view, and generally enjoyed the article. But partway through, the "this sounds like AI" alarm went off in my head. Using AI to write an article criticizing the use of AI, and worse, not disclosing it, is distasteful. Especially since Stephen Diehl was writing long before ChatGPT emerged (with blog posts dating back to 2013). That someone could write but chooses not to somehow makes it worse.

Oh yeah, I also ran a Pangram check of his Gamestop post from 2021 (similar topic and theme) and it came up as 100% human-written, so it is less likely that this is a case of Pangram penalizing a human being for having a specific writing style. Here is the URL: https://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/gamestop/

The author is lying. Pangram is no panacea, but every time I have tested my own prose, it says it is 100% human written. Every single passage I tested from this post was evaluated as 100% AI written. The author should just confess; lying about having written something with AI both reveals the author as a liar and confirms that the author knows that it is wrong to pass off AI slop as one's own work.