> It is unreasonable to expect “specific complaints” about AI vomit like this, because one of the main issues with AI content is the ability to generate an overwhelming amount of it. It’s simply not feasible to give specific criticisms, because the criticism is with all of it.

But how would that make the "I won't read this because it feels like AI" comments more interesting to read?

No one is forcing you to read this stuff, no one is forcing others to read this stuff as well. When I come across text that isn't great, for whatever reason, then I close the tab and move on with my life. Do I have to make it clear to the world what I think of the text in that specific article? Not really, it'll continue spinning like before, and people who want to read it will read it, others like me will just close it.

It sucks that even if the topic of the submission is interesting, here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth if it's worth saying "I don't think that article was human written" or not in the comments, although I'd hope it'd be considered vastly off-topic.

Did the PR achieve it's stated goal or not? Thats what we should be focusing on.

> because one of the main issues with AI content is the ability to generate an overwhelming amount of it.

So then let's focus on that, and not whether it's generated by AI. Yeesh you people are hard to please.

> led someone to believe a 10 page PR is appropriate to begin with.

Agreed, a 10 page PR is not on. But the original article, though evidently touched up, was appropriate in length and scope. What's your real criticism here?

Either it has been updated since you read it or I have no idea why you think it is AI generated after reading half of it.