when i say 'written by an llm' i am skipping a step. it assumes the reader knows that llm style and diction is bad. but of course there are many reasons why it

when i say 'written by an llm' i am skipping a step. it assumes the reader knows that llm style and diction is bad. but of course there are many reasons why it is so bad. for example, i would describe this article as grandiose, overdramatic and excessively ornate. ironically those styles show a lack of humanity. it has vanishingly little substance. take "a poetic snapshot of a subculture forming in the shadows". this is meaningless! it's generic, everything about the article is stating the mean belief. where is the controversy, where is the drama that would justify these massive sentences? you can also notice that everything about an llm text has this repulsive corporate optimism, a desperation to deliver a redeeming conclusion. so this article says, the hero meets the challenge in the journey, "We used opcode charts like musicians used sheet music. We owned the stack." oh no. we reached the bottom. but! watch out! because, we will be redeemed, "That spark is hard to find now, but it still lives in the rarest of places". how about this: no it fucking doesn't, the spark is dead, bled out and buried in a block of concrete. end of article. i studied humanities but i hope that readers of any subject would react the same way.