The author declares that it is fully written by AI using a few prompts. So, not surprising that the whole article is so weak at the core.

▲

zzrrt an hour ago | parent [-]

Out of curiosity, where did he say that? FWIW I ran the first half through Pangram (truncated to use free credits) and it said 73% AI, evenly interspersed. (I have no idea how much truncation breaks their algorithm.)

	▲	shoobiedoo 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'm curious myself, in fact I was kind of relieved to read a long, well written article and just thought it felt human. I hope I'm right