This sort of writing decreases readability. People say "just have your own LLM rewrite it" like you don't lose value when you go from prompt -> slop you didn't review enough to clean this crap up in -> someone else's prompt to change the style -> finally someone reads it.

Do you know what happens a double-digit percentage of the time when I ask Claude to rewrite some shit that it gives me like this? It says things like: "I overstated this, I rechecked and actually..." or "this claim doesn't hold up, actually [this other thing is true]..."

So it's a sign that the claims in the post likely weren't vetted very hard.

So if you aren't proofreading I'm gonna be skeptical. And saying "deal with it" doesn't rescue it. Does it?

And then there's the reflexive "you must just be an ideological hater." No. I'm someone who uses the tools in a domain where quality matters enough that I have to dig into the quality of the tool output and spot the tells for when it's low output, so that I can deliver shit that works reliably and consistently.