If that's the criteria, then fair, but AIMD produces articles that are virtually indistinguishable from what an average copywriter would compose if you hired them.

AIMD is very different from your typical article generators (like https://writesonic.com/, which good God I don't know why anyone would use, but they are doing good, so good for them) that is just spinning out LLM-written content. AIMD orchestrates a multi-step process of topic discovery, source research, content summary, fact validation, hypothesis generation, outline planning, and only then writing. Content generation is a tiny surface area of AIMD, for which I am the least excited. It is really meant to generate a data-rich starting point for writing a high-quality article, rather than produce something that's ready to post. That is also reflected in the product: the content score is based (among other variables) on the % of insights added by the editor VS generated.

The secret sauce behind "anti-AI detection" is 'not writing overly generic, unreferenced content'. Not a single line in the code base tries to evade AI detection; it is just the side-effect of how the product works.

At the end of the day, my job is to sell to the ICP that I am targeting, and I know that their concern (based on user interviews) is that content will be detected as AI detected. I need to get them into the product first before I can educate them.