If an article makes it to the front page despite being AI-generated it probably has some interesting points or ideas, but it's unfortunate that people seeem to choose the speed and style of LLM writing over the individual style and choice that made the writing of yesteryear more interesting and unique.
Now I wonder whether any of it is even true.
But clearly there's a reason it was upvoted if it's on the front page. Why ignore that fact... clearly the community thinks these articles have value if they're upvoted.
(Also, "it's AI, bad article" is just a weak complaint that can't be proven right or wrong - if you dislike it, share why you dislike it, e.g. lacking specific information, shallow depth, something other than "don't like it because AI")
You don't speak for us. If you are going to demand supporting evidence for obvious statements, then you can present supporting evidence for your spurious claims about value.
> No ownership. No accountability. Just assembly-line cooking with zero connection to customers.
> No loyal regulars. No servers to smooth over problems. Just angry reviews that destroyed virtual brands forever.
Pretty common pattern these days.
That, plus the hashtags at the end (unless Substack uses those and I was unaware of it), plus the fact that we know he's using AI in some capacity because of the feature images - it's a reasonable conclusion to draw.