Not sure I agree with the AI edited comments. Using AI to improve the readability and clarity is fine. Sometimes a well structured comment is much better than a braindump that reads like ramblings. And AI is quite good at it (and probably will get better). To make the point, here is how this comment would have looked if edited:
"I don't fully agree with banning AI-edited comments. Using AI to improve readability and clarity is a reasonable thing to do. A well-structured comment is often much better than a braindump that reads like rambling. AI is quite good at this, and it will probably get better. To illustrate the point, here is how this comment would have looked if edited"
Not to take away from your point, but I like your original one better.
Non-edited is better. It flows and reads faster. The AI sentences they feel clinical and sterile. They feel, well, like AI.
The edited version is an example of a sterile/canned response. No one talks like that.
While I do edit my comments to fix typos, certain spelling oddities and other peculiarities would be present.
For all the people saying they prefer the non-edited version: would y'all be saying that if you didn't already know which one was the non-edited version? Be honest.
It's a matter of taste, but your original writing is way better. Your writing has your voice. Like dropping the "I am" from your first sentence, using parentheticals, couching your point in understatement (e.g "sometimes" meaning often instead of just saying "often").
The AI comment might be clear, but it sounds like a press release, not a person, and there's nothing to engage with.
There's nothing inherently better about the edited version. It's just saying the same thing with synonyms substituted, at a slightly more formal but less personal register. HN comments are not academic text, colloquial turns of phrase are perfectly fine and expected.
I prefer your non-edited version. My brain automatically starts to zone out with the AI edited version, side effect of having read way too much AI text