"If you find that interesting, you might find this interesting" seems like a perfectly reasonable motivation for an HN comment. I think it's worth forgiving that and enjoying the broader horizons rather than treating HN threads as a way for lots of smart people to try and craft the most definitive statement about one narrow issue, while policing any deviation therefrom.

My rationale was that, before I had seen this very well produced video, I was not familiar with the way that content farms operated. The idea that words being fabricated means it must be GPT-3 seems spurious to me. A person in a huge hurry, with a poor grasp of the English language, could easily generate fabricated words.

The video I linked is extraordinary in its level of research and quality, and interesting on its own merits. If someone is not fully aware of the extent to which content farms squeeze out content, it’s easy to assume some weird prose is GPT-3. I felt the articles dismissal of the idea of a content farm was too quick, and perhaps they or the readers might not be familiar with how they operate. And so I provided a summary as well as a link to this very high quality investigative source.

> A responsive answer would be along the lines of "well, a content farm might fabricate too because _____."

That is precisely what the original commenter did:

> (…) exploring how this ghost writing works, and why it produces the kind of nonsense writing that looks like GPT-3 but is actually (…)

Well, it's "responsive" for me. In fact it's your comment that was off-topic and meta, the parent was perfectly on topic and responding on the issue.

>A responsive answer would be along the lines of "well, a content farm might fabricate too because _____."

A responsive answer doesn't need to have a particular formula, much less that one. It just needs to be relevant to the issue and provide more information and/or the commentor's own take (could be just their feelings about the issue too).