I am not sure what your complaint is. The article is well written and has some interesting points:

> the reality is that maintainer capacity versus contribution volume is deeply asymmetric, and it's getting worse every day

> It is incredibly demotivating to provide someone with thorough, thoughtful feedback only to realize you've been talking to a bot that will never follow through.

▲

Peritract 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's the exact same complaint as in the article:

> I started noticing patterns. The quality wasn't there. The descriptions had a templated, mechanical feel. And something subtler was missing: the excitement.

The article has mechanically correct prose; that's not the same as well-written, and that's the topic of the article itself.

▲

statements 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Conflicted as to whether I should be more offended at the accusation of using AI to 'filter' my article or because my writing reads as 'templated and mechanical'

There is enough here to have a micro existential crisis.

	▲	fragmede 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		https://xkcd.com/3126/ People's bot detectors are defective, so if you write at all, you're going to get accused of it at some point. It's not annoying, it's rude – and you're absolutely right to be off put by it. If the preceding sentence gave someone a conniption, good! I wrote it with my human brain, I'll have you know! Maybe we could all focus on what's being said and not who or what is saying it.

▲

warkdarrior an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> The article has mechanically correct prose; that's not the same as well-written, and that's the topic of the article itself.

There is no requirement that an article's writing style aligns with the article's topic. Substance over style and all that.