> I'm sorry but this reads like AI slop. Or maybe it's not AI slop, it's just regular human-generated slop, but regardless: it's useless.

> For one: it's intentionally completely unverifiable. Sure, maybe the writer's not brave enough to break their NDA by sharing names. But it's also convenient: nobody can ever poke holes in the story, or add their own context to it. The story just gets to live on its own and earn internet karma regardless of whether it's at all true.

I’m not sure why this would be surprising: it’s a personal story shared on a blog, not an investigative article in a newspaper.

I also don’t think it helps calling everything “AI slop” these days only if one doesn’t like it for some reason.