But the haters are going to hate.
If you had not used AI to fix your post, I bet the top post will be complaining about your grammar.
Some people will always find something negative. Simple as that.
It's just that this one in particular lacks one more edit pass removing some of the AI noise on branding-speak and needless repetition (AI tends to list things and beat the point).
Honestly, no need to write 4000 words if the story can be told in 400. The story is what matters, not word count or "flow".
I'm positive that a post complaining about the grammar would've been (rightfully) downvoted to oblivion on this site.
I'm glad to hear the voice is yours, and I apologize for assume it was the AI's.
I find the way I interact with the world is exceptionally different from the descriptions of everybody else. Some of the symptoms of such manifest as difficulty communicating... with most people.
There are a subset of people who I have not only no problem, but seemingly a drastically increased information exchange rate.
Do with that observation what you will, but I don't write for the lowest common denominator, the preferred style of AI, because I don't write for the people who cant be bothered to understand me. I'm writing for people like me.
n.b. Maybe you are writing for the lowest common denominator. In which case, say that: "Yeah I know it sounds like AI but it's supposed to be advertising, not a technical white paper or PoC"
> the AI just helps me get a baseline down so I'm not staring at a blank page.
If this was true, the top comment wouldn't be a complaint about how the voice of the article sounds "inauthenticlly human" or like an LLM. It's having a stronger influence on your writing than you're giving it credit for. It's on you to decide if or how much you care, but ideally you wouldn't be lying to either yourself or your readers.