My lacklustre writing skills aside, that garbage needs to be called what it is.

It is either satire designed to grab engagement by shocking people, or the genuine anti-AI frustration of a mediocre writer who has realised they've lost their edge, because their work isn't worth paying for over AI.

The people winning literary awards will keep winning them with their manual writing, and they will keep making good money ghostwriting.

But my article, which is meant to communicate some software features in decent, readable prose, isn't worth $10k of ghostwriting. AI will have to do. So you go get, sir, and please stop gatekeeping! (Not you specifically, you get my drift.)

The Economist recently published a piece on this very subject, too, and I found it a good listen: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/09/07/this-arti...

> It is either satire designed to grab engagement by shocking people

it is satire - it's trying very hard to be obvious about it, yet amusingly still fails to get thru now and then

it's an attempt to get inside the head of those people who rush over from one of the various syndicates, pangram verdict in hand, to slam any and all ai writing - usually with pre-cooked burns, uninterested in the actual substance - the ai shout-down brigade

The unchanged AI style is grating to read. I'd rather read the bullet points you fed to your AI than this style. Of course I'd really rather read your own quirky writing style (which identifies you as a human), but if you don't have the bandwidth for that, just post the prompt.

In all honesty, I read your whole page and didn't find it one bit distracting or noticeable. I got to the end and saw the disclaimer about the AI writing and thought, "well, at least that'll head off the inevitable bitching about it being AI writing." Then I came to HN and saw people acting like you were committing atrocities. Sigh.