A piece of writing being thoughtfully put together is far from inconsequential for me.
I use a premium tier ai myself and am not against using it for assistance, it can craft a decent snippet (that still needs multiple manual edits) But not at all a full coherent text that reads efficiently.
Its applies structure without understanding the goal of the text resulting in a paragraph salad.
It simultaneously treats the reader like a toddler with oversimplified metaphors while also overcomplicating things for no other apparent reason than filling a word quota.
Above article is twice the length it needs to be.
Its lazy, lacks actual understanding and feels “sloppy” in the original meaning of the word.
Having read more of the text i feel my original comment was way too forgiving. Even the opener does not make sense if you try and digest it. Silicon. It even includes misinformation, stack management existed before C was a thing.
All I’m saying is that the suspected use of AI shouldn’t be the reason you don’t like it. Instead, dislike it because of all the points you made about the article.
I think it’s safe to argue that most news articles are not thoughtfully put together, regardless of the use of AI. Bad news articles existed before AI and will continue to exist long after.
In irony i probably could have worded my criticism better myself.
Its not because its ai that i don’t like it but rather because it has all the sloppy patterns i started to recognize that are prevalent in ai.
Some of those become increasingly jarring but only because i pay a subjective amount of attention to them. Bad human writers have an advantage in that their bad writing structure is still more unique to only their own writings.
You really gotta stop ruining things for yourself by caring so much about something so inconsequential.
A piece of writing being thoughtfully put together is far from inconsequential for me.
I use a premium tier ai myself and am not against using it for assistance, it can craft a decent snippet (that still needs multiple manual edits) But not at all a full coherent text that reads efficiently.
Its applies structure without understanding the goal of the text resulting in a paragraph salad.
It simultaneously treats the reader like a toddler with oversimplified metaphors while also overcomplicating things for no other apparent reason than filling a word quota.
Above article is twice the length it needs to be. Its lazy, lacks actual understanding and feels “sloppy” in the original meaning of the word.
Having read more of the text i feel my original comment was way too forgiving. Even the opener does not make sense if you try and digest it. Silicon. It even includes misinformation, stack management existed before C was a thing.
All I’m saying is that the suspected use of AI shouldn’t be the reason you don’t like it. Instead, dislike it because of all the points you made about the article.
I think it’s safe to argue that most news articles are not thoughtfully put together, regardless of the use of AI. Bad news articles existed before AI and will continue to exist long after.
Thats fair,
In irony i probably could have worded my criticism better myself.
Its not because its ai that i don’t like it but rather because it has all the sloppy patterns i started to recognize that are prevalent in ai.
Some of those become increasingly jarring but only because i pay a subjective amount of attention to them. Bad human writers have an advantage in that their bad writing structure is still more unique to only their own writings.