Plot twist, 100% likely you've read and shared humanized AI content.

If you read the summary/abstract and nope out because there's nothing interesting or insightful, whatever, but if you were interested in subject of the article and its assertions and you nope out because of an AI writing tic, that's just toolish.

Plot twist, applying practical advice to avoid wasting time doesn't mean that you never waste time.

> Plot twist, 100% likely you've read and shared humanized AI content.

I'm sure this has happened. If the author can speak with authority about everything that has written, then ya, I have to concede that is fine. It's obviously the most true when you are going to be engaging with the author. If you ask them a question and they respond, "I'm no sure, the LLM wrote it," that is a huge problem (and pretty pathetic, I might add).

> but if you were interested in subject of the article and its assertions and you nope out because of an AI writing tic, that's just toolish.

Meh, it I can find another article on the same subject written by a person then it's not too toolish. I've never liked this argument. It's the same thing with music. Even if I like a piece of music, and then I find out it's AI, I'm not going to listen to it. I can understand why people think this is stupid, but there is SO much music--even before it exponentially exploded with AI--that I can find something else I really like created by a person. Especially since when something really tickles my fancy, I like to read everything I can about the artist (which is an indirect form of engagement).

AI writing tics usually also make text hard to read. I figure you mean "tics which don't affect the readability" but these are pretty rare.