> It's about reading about a personal experience written by an actual person

This seems to be the dividing line in the AI writing debate.

If one cares about the interpersonal connection formed with the author, generally they seem to strongly dislike machine-generated content.

If one cares about the content in isolation, then generally the perceived quality is more important than authorship. "The author is dead" and all that.

Both points are valid IMO. It's okay to dislike things, and it's okay to enjoy things.

> I want new and genuine insights that only another human can create.

This is a good illustration of what I mean: you personally value the connection with the author, and you can't get a human connection when there was never a human to begin with.

If you take a look at the others in the thread who had a positive view of the work, they generally focused on the content instead.

It's more that a human author has had an experience and writes to communicate it to other people. They have objectives that make sense in human contexts. They have learned things, run into issues, solved problems, developed arguments, evolved their understanding, felt emotions, considered and rejected actions, and integrated those recent experiences into a lifetime of experience. Then they order and condense all of that into a form that communicates it effectively to other experiencing beings.

LLMs, in contrast, experience nothing. When they "write", they are not even vaguely approximating what a human writer does.