The fact that you posted here means that you want people to read your article. Yet you don't have the will to write the article yourself. Honestly, would have been a good read but after about reading 30% of it earnestly, it just felt like a padded article (filled with the usual AI-isms such as "[comma] the marketing is real") that you could have written better.

The problem with using AI to write it is that you are under no pressure to to maintain brevity. Maybe not a bad thing when you need a guide but in this case it just made it harder to read

▲

humbfool2 a day ago | parent [-]

Thank you for the feedback. Of course I do want people to read. The whole point of posting this here or anywhere is so that if anyone, who is in the similar situation can jump to the TLDR or conclusion and fix it will save them some time. Not the entire article is A.I. generated A.I. articles are longer but ideas can be conveyed in different ways. I chose to convey in the way I felt best. The article went through multiple human reviews and in future if I decide to write an article brevity will be in my mind when writing longer articles. I do feel like the world now prefers short form content over long.

	▲	happymellon 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I do feel like the world now prefers short form content over long. There is plently of long form content that upvoted on HN. I think the difference is when people feel like it is short form content with padding. AI is good as creating noise, so you have more words without having more to say. Hence the criticism. I'm starting to deal with "AI written requirements". They think it is so much better because it has more words, but it's just longer to read without adding anything meaningful. People don't like feeling like they've waisted their time on something that could have been a 140 char tweet.