I'd bet good money you couldn't achieve more than say 60% in a properly controlled test
I would claim to be able to tell an AI-generated image from illustration hand-draw by a person if that illustration had roughly the characteristics of standard AI-generated images. IE, sort of curvilinear magic realism feel, crude knowledge of anatomy and perspective, uniform soft lighting etc. And there are quite a few artists out like that and I shudder for their careers.
The problem is the value of things that look like AI has been reduced because they're everywhere - and that include a fair number of non-AI-generated stuff, sure.
I can't help but feel you're just betraying your limited exposure to what's currently possible.
You're confusing "what lots of people seem to want to generate" with "what the models are capable of"
Moreover, it's not at all strange that people learned what generative AI looks. When I see it in "in the wild", it instantly in my mind becomes "generated thing". And exactly because the images are created by a process of averaging, once I'm used to them, they have a "nothing special or interesting here" feeling, which isn't a good feeling for many thing, for example accompanying illustrations.