One obvious way I can see to inoculate yourself against this kind of thing is to ignore the identity of the person making an argument, and simply consider the argument itself.
This should have been common practice since well before AI was capable of presenting convincing prose. It also could be seen as a corollary of Paul Graham's point in https://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html . It's also an idea that I was raised to believe was explicitly anti-bigoted, which people nowadays try to tell me is explicitly bigoted (or at least problematic).
I don’t think real life is that squeaky clean, though.
Humans are emotional creatures. We don’t (usually) operate logically. The identity of the arguer and our perception of them (e.g. as a bot or not) plays a role in how we perceive the argument.
On top of that, there are situations where the identity of an arguer changes the intent of the argument. Consider, as a thought experiment, a know jewel thief arguing that locked doors should be illegal.
"I have never personally experienced pregnancy discrimination!" means something different from certain identities than others. Some lived experience provides useful information.
On the Internet, of course, it's hard to verify. But that's an orthagonal problem.
