I'm puzzled by this reply. It's perfectly fine for me to hypothesize on the reason for downvotes in response to someone else asking why it has been downvoted.
You're free to opine on the reason for downvotes too. This metacomment, however, is more noise than signal.
it is objectively a potential reason in the universe of reasons, but you're 100% free to believe whatever you want, even if it's wrong
and the fact that multiple people upvoted my comment at a minimum suggests others also believe it to be a possible explanation
i have no idea why you've chosen this particular hill to die on, when neither of us stands to profit from this protracted exchange
What happens is that some people routinely use your purported reason "it's LLM generated" as an excuse to try to discredit anything at all, and it's not right, irrespective of whether the material is LLM generated or not. Any material should be critiqued on the basis of its own merits and demerits, irrespective of who or what authored it. We need to shed the pro-human bias.
What you had claimed is not even a potential reason in the universe of reasons. It is a demonstration of bias, an excuse to refrain from reason.
One line summaries of comprehensible articles can get downvoted because they don't add value beyond what's already very clear from the article.