What they said was what it looks like, and in fact it does look exactly like what they said.
The comment contains the exact same content and value as a bot comment. It doesn't matter who or what wrote it, the critique of the comment itself holds water.
So the critique was not "a bot wrote this" it was "either a bot wrote this, or a human wrote a comment that is no better than the ones bots write".
You know what else a human might do even worse than a bot a lot of times? A bot would read this and apologize for getting something so wrong.
Do you even realize the irony of your unnecessary complaint about potential bots generating more noise than actual bots?
I never actually said they are a bad judge of what comments are botted, just merely suggested it as a possibility.
Otherwise:
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html
Suffice to say, I'd thus kindly reject being a "bad comprehender of what words mean", thank you very much. It was a perfectly reasonable initial reading of their comment as far as I'm concerned. It's ambiguous. Happens.
The fact that "is this AI? this is AI." is a damn near fixture of every thread these days, doesn't help.
