I think it's by now clear it's about this answer.
Let me sumarize my reaction when I saw it:
- I thought of it as really bad
- Only mentioning common 'knowledge'
- Yes, 'knowledge' is quoted as all information presented are platitudes of the worst kind without any reflection
- It doesn't touch the subject of the question asking about 'why' at all
- It's more like a rant going astray around a keyword - ELIZA on speed.
- Or better just a random collection of statements without any inherent value.
I guess it's pretty clear I do not give that Answer any credit. So, why didn't I downvote or flag?
- No downvote, as it's right in that soft area of so-so answers not mentioning anything wrong but not providing any content.
- No flaging, as it's on that neither good nor explicit bad just deep in the clueless area
- Being friendly to newbies. For such common keywords we often get new users that simply dump their 'knowledge', no matter if useful or not, and this was a new, low score account.
- While I was close to write a comment about it, I did abstain, as it seemed like a very fruitless endeavour to argue with people writing texts like that. Not just because of the OP, but also because of possible secondary arguments about me being nasty.
Long story short, I simply decided to ignore it.
It does, like many other answers in such 'common knowledge' areas, repeat what 'must be true'. In the end it's exactly what AIs can do: provide non-contend, non-offensive and not-wrong texts - like the schmooze those side table magazines use to sell their paparazzi pictures.
And also exactly the reason why AI generated texts have no place on RC.SE. AI can not provide any information. They do not and will never. RC.SE is a medium intended to increase knowledge, for each single question and the site at whole.
There is no filter of collected information against knowledge or even basic logic. They only re-play what they 'hear' most about around a given topic, resulting in not in a scientific summary of that topic, but collected and averaged gossip. It's well known from process control that output of systems working on feedback of averaged values will always degrade.
This is the exact counter-thesis to what RC.SE is intended for. We do not want to average knowledge but collect the peaks of knowledge.
Bottom line: There is no place in RC.SE for any kind of automated answers
On a side note, it's a good example why it's important to have your personal information filled out - something AIs not really can provide.