To me it's a useful signal not to read an article that someone didn't bother to write.

Which is a shame as real insights are buried inside some of these articles, which if the author bothered to write in his own words could have reached an audience that would have appreciated them.

To me writing is one of the areas where I want no LLM involvement.

Not OP but my frustrations come from it being impossible to ignore and outright distracting.

I've found the same thing showing with Claude-coded/designed front ends that overuse the same semi-monospaced fonts, Blue/Yellow/Red palette and rounded corner borders. It isn't that it is bad, but it often isn't fit for purpose.

You're right it wont change anything, but authors shouldn't be surprised when people who care about their time/attention comment on low/no effort pieces.

The problem is that the second you suspect something is written by AI, its a pretty good signal that 50-80% of the text is empty of meaning. Maybe that will change, but LLMs are terrible and inefficient writers.

Only so much time in the day, its a quick signal to not waste anymore of it.

It's both poor substance and style, in most cases (and this case.)

Pointing out they generated it at least encourages them to write a shorter article that says what they meant.

I have a counter proposition: don't fall for this constant suggestion that LLMs are an unavoidable future would you leave the techbros alone now pretty please, relentlessly keep reminding that we still don't think it's acceptable so people don't start to think this is okay since nobody complains anymore.

I appreciate these comments, they save me time for procrastinating elsewhere.