I'm sorry, if your impression is that this is AI generated, but it wasn't. I do use some tools as part of my editing, drafting and iteration process, but my articles always start from my first draft and have a lot of additional personal interaction along the way.

>and have a lot of additional personal interaction along the way.

Right, well this explanation sounds even weirder, whatever the hell it is supposed to mean. Sick of half-intelligent crap that is pushed out by quarter-intelligent humans "aided" by their slop generating "tools". You guys will hit the last nail in the coffin of the formerly readable world wide web.

I've actually written about my process in the past, if you care about it: https://substack.norabble.com/p/writing-with-ai.

I've learned a few things since then, but until I get a chance to update it, that will have to do.

What I'm clarifying there is, I don't just write a draft and say "make this better". I spend time editing and rewriting (everyone should, such that should be implied for any author, but since the question came up felt the need to clarify).

Anyhow, I'd be open to any real critique. Do you disagree with the premise? Do you despise the style?

I'd be more interested in the first than the second, since I write because of ideas, and that's just my path to communicate them, but go ahead either way.

Here is an honest critique for you: it is too dense, too convoluted, unreadable and lacking that coherent, logical structure that even the laziest human-written article inherently posseses. I was going to read it, but after a few parapgraphs, it just gives off that familiar, yet weird AI-slop vibe. Do yourself a favour and write something on your own.

The second section is probably the most dense, I can see that. That said, there's a reason.. I'm trying to communicate an idea that has a lot of dependencies. If you know those already, all that cautiousness and unwinding is probably unnecessary.

Anyhow, the basic premise is that deployment of security fixes takes a long time. It doesn't have to, but it does, because basically, a lot of places never did what they should have.

I try to explain why without just screaming at the heavens at the stupidity, hoping to actually enlist the people who might be able to stop making that mistake. I know, tall order, but any progress is progress.

Other than that, it's just focusing on why this is more important today than last year.

> That said, there's a reason.. I'm trying to communicate an idea

Then communicate it - in your own words. Being made to read through automatically generated text which seeks a statistical average makes me livid - it tells of a certain disrespect towards the reader. Slapping AI-slop onto your draft and calling it your work is dishonest.

Here's something that I can guarantee had no AI influence, do you think it's better? https://substack.norabble.com/p/who-are-rentiers

I'm not going to play your editor here, but, yes I'd prefer an imperfect human-written essay to an AI slop word salad any day. The reason we read essays and blogs is to get a different point of view or even understand something about an author. It's the human point of view I am interested in, not statistically optimised "content" that looks polished on the outside, but is empty on the inside.