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 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