[thatjoeoverthr]

Not all arguments can be evaluated rigorously. Life is too short. They will be filtered on heuristics. No choice. This text was obviously randomly sampled from a popular, off the shelf model. You will have to accept that wise audiences will clock it at a glance, see that no person wrote it, and pass.

[chungusamongus]

It says it was written by deepseek v4. You are making it sound like they're being deceptive.

Life is too short yet you waste it complaining about things like this. I dont think you're wise. Youre provincial.

[thatjoeoverthr]

It doesn’t matter which model it was sampled from. In any case, time isn’t fungible. I consider censuring it substantially more valuable use of time than reading it. And it’s definitely more pleasurable than reading the same verbal tics over and over again because some hustler can’t be bothered to edit their story before sending it out. If you expect to dump an unedited draft from a text sampler, you’re delusional. (Calling you delusional is also more pleasurable, and a more valuable use of time, than reading verbal tics.)

[chungusamongus]

But You've spent so much more time complaining and rationalizing your biases than it would take to simply read the story.

[thatjoeoverthr]

Correct. Ideal. The story deserves zero time. In this way, I am in agreement with its publisher.