Because it's a trapdoor function. You generate heaps of content with AI with 1:10 or 1:100 amplification of time/attention invested, but your readers spend their time reading it at 1:1.

Also, what are we doing using AI to write our blogs? Surely that's the final domain of human writing outside of our local circle?

If nothing else, it should be done as a courtesy to those who would like to avoid such content.

If the result is better for having used AI, why wouldn't an author want to disclose it?

Because I would've completely avoided the article if I knew that I would be served slop. I was interested in the content, but I was immediately thrown off by the writing style, which closely resembles what I've been getting from Opus 4.8 lately in my dev work. Filler language and useless metaphors everywhere.

> Booleans look tidy until somebody adds a third case and exhaustiveness silently doesn’t kick in. Strings narrow honestly.

Like, nobody truly writes like that. It wouldn't get past any competent editor.

Strings narrow honestly? What does that even mean? This kind of 3-word precision is useless and they appear everywhere in the article. We get the point with in the first sentence, no need to add more.