We have to agree to disagree.

My post says that you do not claim (meaning "say") to agree or disagree - which is pretty much what you are saying? Am I portraiting something different?

Now, since you seem to take offence from my opinion, I can give you the reasons why I think that posting directly from IA is not very serious and certainly claiming a superior factuality is incorrect (again this is IMO, not the word from the gods):

(a) AI tends to hallucinate.
(b) AI is biased by its own algorithms.

and the most important:

(c) AI is learning mostly from published content in the world and in general from publiseh content that is at large in English. The scale of texts published supporting an American and British view of history is probably 20 times any other, and these text do have extreme historical biases ("history is written by winners" rings a bell)

Hence if you post from AI without adding anything, you are mostly posting from a biased system.

This is not your problem at all, this is a world problem. I happen to have a friend who is doing a PhD on how AI is actually biasing researchers in different fields that actually follow exactly that argument "AI says and it is very factual" - so they do not check and introduce from bias to severe mistakes in their research.

Now, this is not a fight nor worth a fight. You can of course post whatever you want as I can have a view on it. You can also have your view on what I post about Trump or the no-Kings or, for that matter, my writting style.