What I'm talking about is posted across all popular instances and is not specific to db0, and imo there is a very big difference between content that is explicitly AI and AI blog posts that portray themselves as being human written. I support the existence of a space for the former while opposing the latter.

Therefore, I believe the strongest method for verifying ones own human-ness is to write from one’s own unique perspective.

I agree, but it is possible to adjust your personal filter to let your unique signature be expressed in different ways, and it's possible to write with your audience in mind without being inauthentic. Throwing up your hands and giving up is not the right approach, even though it's a hard problem that by its nature resists specific actionable answers. The article gives an example of a contrived way AI can attempt to falsify such a signal:

“You’ll be reading someone’s Substack or blog post, and all of a sudden in the middle of a perfect paragraph, there’ll be a mistake sitting out there like a sore thumb,” said O’Bryan, 62. “It’s like, try harder.”

There are lots more, such as reducing the probability of the top weighted words the LLM chooses from in the last stage of its process. But this level of extra attention to automated signaling isn't always applied, and I believe it can be defeated by developed intuition if people will bother to try to develop it. From the writing side, the approach should be to put more of yourself into more parts of what you write, to try to match the intuitions of readers, and to reduce efforts to converge on concepts of correct writing that could be in conflict with this.