I think I’ll just start flagging these. They’re just a new kind of spam.
I can't quite put my finger on it; obviously the "it's not this. It's that." is part of it, but even without the obvious tells that writing was AI-generated/improved, it's just so tiring to read?
Maybe a linguist can chime in why all these texts are so samey, cloying and annoying to read? Is it (just) the pacing?
> The ... isn’t just ... . It’s ... .
Think about it. You wouldn't give someone crap for writing in broken English because there are many really smart people that are non English speakers. So why are we giving crap for people using AI to write better posts? If the idea is relevant, what's the point in criticizing the style?
A fair question would be "is the idea in the post actually the writer's or was it entirely done by AI"? However how can one actually tell if the idea, not the style is original? You can't. So it's pointless to be angry about style. Focus on the message.
This is a bozo who prompted the machine for a viral essay. He did not write anything. He does not know anything.
But I’ve spent enough time with these tools and coaching people on writing over the years to recognize the extremely low signal to noise ratio and prompted style instructions. I’m equally confident the gentleman in my spam folder is not a Nigerian prince.
Look. If you don't want your readers to worry that your hard-written article is AI slop - just don't run it through the slopifier. Or at the very least, spend 5 minutes tweaking the output.
If you can't be assed to do that, then it's very likely that you don't have valuable insights to share.
Pretty sure the point is it's making the post worse, not better.
But in all honesty, for some it's extremely hard to write concisely in English. Maybe what you call worse is actually better in comparison to what the person could write by himself, insights notwithstanding.