pull down to refresh
I would kindly suggest that reading is also an activity done for recreation/leisure, and thus aesthetics are an important part of what you write, if you want to get reader engagement. Thus, if a reader finds an AI-like style to be unappealing, then they don't really need any other reason to not engage with the piece, and it's on the writer to convince the reader to engage.
I would kindly suggest that reading is also an activity done for recreation/leisure, and thus aesthetics are an important part of what you write, if you want to get reader engagement. Thus, if a reader finds an AI-like style to be unappealing, then they don't really need any other reason to not engage with the piece, and it's on the writer to convince the reader to engage.
Point well taken.
Readers have to feel comfortable reading the article to engage with it, and if something feels artificial, overly optimized, or just "off," many people will disengage almost immediately (even if they cannot fully explain why).
That is actually part of what I was trying to explore in the article itself.
I do need to do a better job of this. Thanks for your feedback.
I respectfully disagree with several of the recent comments about this article, especially the idea that the “tool was thinking for me” or that the presence of AI-isms (like excessive use of lists) somehow invalidates the underlying point.
Did anyone actually notice the intentionally included example of unedited AI slop which I DELIBERATELY highlighted as a counterpoint?
Ironically, several people immediately reacted to the “synthetic” feel of that example — which was exactly the point I was making.
The original draft of this article actually contained far more AI-isms stylistically. I reduced many of them during editing, but clearly did not eliminate all of them (and that was intentional).
The actual question I was trying to explore was:
what distinguishes AI assistance from AI slop?
Or does the presence of any AI involvement now automatically collapse everything into:
“not real writing.”
But thanks for your feedback. It's helpful.