I think this is AI. It’s not as bad as some, but it’s got that breathless enthusiasm and drones on and on without ever quite getting to its point.

▲

orwin 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Pretty sure it's edited AI. Honestly for dry stuff like this it's okay, if a bit tiring at the end.

▲

roywiggins 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Pangram flags it. It also talks about "quietly" and "the gap". It's AI.

▲

bluGill 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

AI is fine in itself. The only question are the numbers correct. I'm not sure how to validate them. The facts count the most important. The second is the article readable without being too wordy or any other such problems.

	▲	jdlshore a day ago \| parent [-]
		Problem is, if they didn’t put in the effort to write the article, how can I trust that they put in the effort to verify the facts? Not to mention that the article is terribly verbose and never gets to its point (by the time I gave up, that is, quite a long way through). Writing is how you organize your thoughts, and it’s not been done here.

▲

semiquaver a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s not even edited, pangram rates it 100% bot-authored.

▲

cozzyd 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, a lot of obvious tells.

▲

notatoad 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]