If this is meant to be an example of the superior writing quality that's possible with AI assistance, I'm not seeing it. This whole post is difficult to read:
It adds paragraph breaks after single sentences, sometimes mid sentence.
Some appear to be meant as headings, but there's no clear organization going on.
It expounds over and over about letting the AI do the "heavy lifting" and "final polishing" without ever giving examples of how it helped or what the original input was.
It awkwardly jumps to second person several times, which makes me wonder if these were part of the author's "collaboration" with the AI that got left in by mistake.
Despite the many words spilled, it never gets around to having a point beyond: save time, make more articles faster
All of these things are hallmarks of slop. It makes me think the author is doing such a shoddy job reviewing it that they didn't actually care about the quality of the work. And if that's the case, then why should I bother reading it?
1 Comments
blipcast@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 138d
If this is meant to be an example of the superior writing quality that's possible with AI assistance, I'm not seeing it. This whole post is difficult to read:
All of these things are hallmarks of slop. It makes me think the author is doing such a shoddy job reviewing it that they didn't actually care about the quality of the work. And if that's the case, then why should I bother reading it?