Tl;dr the author is upset that the slop generator will generate slightly different slop, and calls this perversion of the text, ironically missing the fact that

Tl;dr the author is upset that the slop generator will generate slightly different slop, and calls this perversion of the text, ironically missing the fact that the entire technology takes existing human work and perverts it in order to give him the output that he seemingly enjoys. Perhaps it's not actually irony, perhaps it is hypocrisy. This isn't to say there aren't correct statements in the article, but its framed very strangely.