Do you think the original article was NOT written (or at least heavily revised) by AI?

What does the following even mean?

“diluting the semantic density and specific gravity of the argument.”

Or this beaut:

“By accepting these ablated outputs, we are not just simplifying communication; we are building a world on a hollowed-out syntax that has suffered semantic ablation.” (Which reduces to ‘if we accept ablated outputs, we accept ablated outputs.’)

Or this;

“ The logical flow – originally built on complex, non-linear reasoning – is forced into a predictable, low-perplexity template.”

The ‘logical flow’ of what? It never even says. And what is ‘non-linear’ reasoning?

For all I know the original author wrote it all. But, a very close reading of the original article screams fluff to me… just gibberish.

That is, I don’t know if there was much ‘meaning’ in the original to begin with. If I’m going to read gibberish, I’d prefer it to be written in the style of a hard-boiled detective. That’s just me though.