1 As far as AI writing goes, I'm not sure that article is wrong. I read a bunch of stuff on Kindle Unlimited, and a couple months ago I read a series that I quickly realized was written by AI, as it had most of the tells: a ton of two-word "sentences", "not this but that" and so on. No em dashes, though. It wasn't too bad but about halfway through I noticed that it had run out of context window and the story kind of fell apart. It was a post-zombie-apocalypse story, and major details started undergoing huge changes. A semi-adversarial group that the main characters were starting to ally with suddenly disappeared a little more than halfway through, and at the end suddenly reappeared as, essentially, a nemesis, and the original nemesis vanished. More and more stuff like that started happening: at the beginning of Book 2, the main character suddenly was thinking about a gun battle he was in where this gun blew up in his hands or something, that injured both his hands, and of course this event had never even been hinted at in the first book. Could've been a decent-ish story but the author clearly made no effort to instill even rudimentary continuity, so I gave up, and even posted a review saying that.

2 test comment #2

3 I know someone who used to get paid to doctor badly human written fiction texts, and they started fixing AI fiction texts a couple years ago. Middling AI quality is maybe around worst human quality for that case, so used appropriately it can be good enough.  (Caveat, I half assed some of the steps /myself/ for the interpretation that I attempted to summarize.)

"muh writing quality" and "the beautiful prose that I produce" basically codes that someone was trained by academics, and automatically puts value on what they learned from those crazies.  Actual relevant questions for good non-fiction writing are "is my thinking clear?", "do I express the ideas clearly and efficiently?", "How well do I understand what the audience needs?", and "do I consistently address the correct audience?" 

I'm basically erratic in my own writing.  (I eventually learned to be guided by instinct, and my writing instinct is more often inappropriate the crazier that I am.  I can be a standard deviation crazier than my average, and bias the writing back to functional if I can force myself to slowly and with more awareness.)

If someone is only talking writing quality in cosmetics, and in social status, they never learned to care enough about content, and about internal error checking of ideas.   

The whole reason the "wordcels" (1) are worried that LLMs could cause the end times, is that they were delusional about the value that the older writing-like product had.  They don't model normal audience responses to text, because for them it is who made the text, and what the socially advantageous response is for what source. 

These are the people who did not understand that they were lying when they said positive things about Obama's ideas.(2)

LLMs are not really a threat to my employment, as someone whose occupation could be summarized to 'a writer'.  However, that statement is based on what problems I inflict on my own employ-ability. 

(1) a friend coined this word for a certain sort of language-fixated academic-trained lackwit. I'm not sure I really care for wordcel as a word, but I do not have a good synonym. 

(2)  Obama's ideas were stupid, and they were evil.

4 Dear PatBuckman,
I think the term "intelligentsia" is what you were looking for.

5 Yeah, that seems like a good word.