I am opposed to the new policy, and to how it was rolled out. I have concerns about Stack Exchange's actions, and I have been sharing those concerns in multiple venues. But I want to quibble with one detail in this post:
"To be clear: AI-generated posts are allowed, as long as they meet other post guidelines (e.g. for quality)."
Personally I do not consider this an accurate statement. I have seen the private guidance to moderators, and that's not what it says. The private guidance to moderators does not say that AI-generated posts are allowed. Moderators are hobbled in their ability to enforce the prohibition on AI-generated posts -- excessively and extraordinarily hobbled, in my opinion -- but the rule against AI-generated posts remains. Now I understand that many moderators have taken the position that preventing enforcement is basically equivalent to eliminating the rule, so what SE has done is tantamount to changing the rule; but I take the position that it is not the same. See the distinction between de jure vs de facto.
I realize I am quibbling over a detail that many might consider to be secondary or besides the point, or they don't think the distinction is relevant or meaningful. But personally, I want to uphold a practice of high integrity. One of my complaints with the public posts from Stack Exchange is that they contain a misleading/uncharitable characterization of their private guidance and of the feedback they've received from moderators. I'd like to see us in the community maintain a high standard and the high moral ground.
I'm not defending the SE policy. I'm advocating for precision in our statements, as we critique the policy.