This is a big point thats often missed.

A lot of american buisness communication is packing, fluff or filler to either disguise a lack of knowledge or not make firm statements.

Unless you are very careful, a standard LLM output will wrap a bunch of obvious points in lots of filler language. This works in business because the most toxic phrase you can utter is "I don't know". So we are used to verbal noise, and pick through the filler to glean clues to what the writer actually knows or wants to assert (or not assert)

If you look at modern tech journalism, its either thinly re-worded PR pieces, or re-iteration of other not relevant opinions (see meta's AR glasses) You skim them to read to pull out interesting points (full colour, speakers, battery life, etc). The rest is just packing.

But for "pleasure" reading, ie stuff thats not directly related to your chain of command, there is no use in reading that shit.

Either its a story, where you need to impart emotion, or a. novel viewpoint. Or its an argument, where you also have a story, with some "facts" that also support an emotion.

That requires some level of understanding of the subject matter, to make a coherent narrative, that doesn't feel empty.

TLDR:

LLMs generally produce Buisness passive, which is almost useless as a form of communication. Just send bullet points.