How can you suppose that this is not a good reason to object, especially days after https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 ?
I find the style so reflexively grating that it's honestly hard for me to imagine others not being bothered by it, let alone being bothered by others being bothered.
Especially since I looked at previous posts on the blog and they didn't have the same problem.
If the author wrote a detailed rough draft, had AI edit, reviewed the output thoroughly, and has the domain knowledge to know if the AI is correct, then this could be a useful piece.
I suspect most authors _don’t_ fall in that bucket.
It's partly just a matter of taste; we can disagree on whether that's a good reason, but I'd be surprised if there were no writing styles that you personally find offputting.
The LLM smell is also a signal of low effort, and a signal that we as readers can't rely on our usual heuristics for judging credibility. The whole thing with LLMs is that they're great at producing polished, plausible-looking outputs, but they're still prone to bullshitting and making errors that don't match the usual human patterns. (And of course they're a great tool for churning out human-initiated disinformation.) If you don't have any kind of immune response against the LLM smell, I reckon you're probably absorbing more bs than you realise.
Is low effort really a valuable signal though? Or is it what's actually in the content that's valuable? Like here readers are literally saying that they found the content valuable "but AI smell". Why is there a "but"? Would there be a similar issue if the author had contracted a human assistant to do X? Definitely not, and I see no reason why the treatment should be different for AI.
There, FTFY :D