新增 uni-agent 聊天输入框内引用的图片，支持点击后打开预览

驰许田猎场，扬汉魏雄风，全新军团玩法上线！

自古以来，四时田猎，春搜夏苗，秋狝冬狩！

如今三国，军团狩猎，磨砺刀兵，一展雄风！

前往许田猎场，寻觅野兽踪迹线索，展示顶尖猎人身手！

三大模式，单人狩猎、多人围猎、巨兽绞猎，让不同能力的主公各有挑战！

全新排行，顶级军团瓜分珍稀奖励！

军团狩猎官，每周二、四、六，在军团等各位英豪来战！

I published an essay arguing that AI agent loops burn money because nobody defines exit conditions before deploying. A developer left a five-exchange comment thread that built a complete production architecture on top of it. An AI podcast tool turned the unpublished draft into a full episode before it even went live.

The founder of DEV.to liked the piece.

An hour later, Sloan flagged it as AI-generated.

A second essay got flagged the same day. Same message. Same pattern.

60+ articles on DEV.to. Never flagged once. The two pieces that got flagged generated more technical discussion than anything else I've published here.

I added the disclaimers. Moved on. Then I asked, in public, if this had happened to anyone else.

It had. And the answer was more interesting than I expected.

Sloan isn't a bot running quietly in the background. Someone is sending those messages. A community member — someone I've known on the platform for months — had been reading articles and running them through GPTZero to inform his flagging decisions. Mine included.

He posted about it. Openly. Tagged the founders. Explained his reasoning. No hiding, no anonymous report — just a person who'd decided this needed doing and said so publicly.

I don't think he was wrong to care. The platform's guidelines are reasonable and disclosure matters. But it reframed everything. I'd spent days thinking Sloan was a blunt automated tool failing to read carefully. What actually happened was a thoughtful person, reading articles and running them through a third-party detector, reaching the same conclusion a blunt tool would have reached — without finishing the essay.