AI is almost the exact opposite. It's verbose fluff that's only superficially structured well. It's worse than average
(waiting for someone to reply that I can tell the AI to be concise and meaningful)
"You're describing the default output, and you're right — it's bad. But that's like judging a programming language by its tutorial examples.
The actual skill is in the prompting, editing, and knowing when to throw the output away entirely. I use LLMs daily for technical writing and the first draft is almost never the final product. It's a starting point I can reshape faster than staring at a blank page.
The real problem isn't that AI can't produce concise, precise writing — it's that most people accept the first completion and hit send. That's a user problem, not a tool problem."
It's entirely involuntary, I am just unable to care. It's almost always justified because the text in question is always painfully bloated, and repetitive.
The LLM-text you posted could have been (given I didn't read it carefully):
"Skill issue. Iterate on the output, never accept what you receive on the first pass"
Instead we get the standard:
- Agree with the user
- Lackluster simile
- Actual content
- Not X, Y. X, not Y.
Me too. I don't know about the eye movements, but there are probably dozens of us being unable to focus on a LLM-text: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46630931