[hansmayer]

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.

[nedruod]

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.

[hansmayer]

> 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.

[nedruod]

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

[hansmayer]

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.