Funny, I did not expect to but I actually agree with most of you said. Primarily because to me, as a completely non-AI writer, you pegged what I personally see as the unmistakable flags of AI content: non sequiturs of language and richness of concept and ideas.

For myself, when I am looking for AI, I do not pay nearly as much attention to specific techniques as I do to the way it feels as a whole, reading it carefully as if someone were speaking to me personally and noting the oddnesses, the tiny bits that are just huh? as you move by them because in some tiny and otherwise unnoticeable way they just do not follow. They are not what a natural speaker would say, even a natural speaker of a non-English language who put their text through a translator and then posted it. Some things just don't follow, but make sense to a pattern recognizer. I think that's what you're alluding to by "questionable understanding of normal human behavior" and I agree.

Thus, in light of what you replied, I actually do now see your point about OP's posted text, but the reason it did not read as AI to me personally is because it passed this personal non-sequitur test. When I read it, it brought in the unexpected and it did turn the same rhetorical tricks you cited, but not in a jarring or "uncanny valley" way. Then again, I am also not on social media and never have been, so there's that: to spot counterfeits, don't spend time with the fakes; spend time with the real thing. Being away from sound bites and short form content helps a lot. That doesn't mean it isn't AI, only that it did not read so to me.

I also look for what I personally call "idea richness," the cumulative number of separate (related or unrelated to the primary) concepts and ideas that are interwoven into the text but are not presented as part of a list or itemized rebuttal. To me, that richness is part of what makes something worth reading: does it introduce secondary images and ideas? Metaphors and similes? Bring unrelated ideas and concepts into contrast? Use the five senses? Include technically unimportant but still related lived experience? Demonstrate a wide and curious intellectual history? I could go on, but you get the point. Does it add tarragon to the fish?

AI fails miserably at all that. AI at this time could not actually write this comment, no matter how well it was prompted, because it is an exploration of one person's lived and felt experience. AI is a pattern recognizer, not a human feeler, senser, and wildly imperfect thinker like me. In terms of idea richness, OP's text didn't pass and didn't fail that one for me, so I defaulted to not-AI.

Speaking of which, anymore (and I might be odd for my age because only the young people are telling me the same) along with all the above I am starting to get a felt sense of revulsion for AI content, one that I chalk up to my putting so much effort over time into detecting the human content, taken in addition to my burgeoning aversion to the fake. I have a great foundation for spotting counterfeit prose because I have read so much real prose, but my revulsion to it is growing apace with learning to spot it. The young people I know (high school, early college) are telling me they feel the same, though for them it's more about hearing it in music than reading it in text.

It will be interesting to see what happens next, because as possible as it is that AI is moving toward content that is superficially indistinguishable from human product, it is also possible in some vague way that none of us can wholly explain yet that humans are also becoming capable of detecting non-human content by purely animal means.

And you're right, I was getting offended, but you are not the correct target. Thank you for taking the time to reply in earnest. I appreciate it.