Hi, the author here. I can confirm that writing is not my best skill, plenty to criticize on it. All the rest (like the content and facts) should matter though, that was the point of the article.

The "content" is indecipherable due to your awful writing. no idea what point you're trying to make, it seems to repeatedly contradict itself

You are right, I will do my best and work harder to write better and have a better webpage. Is that I like writing but I am not good at it even in my mother language. The most concerning factor however is what people prioritize. Same thing like when a PHD thesis (in science) got criticized for missing comas and grammar errors, while the defendant was explaining a new strain of bacteria.

That's an appallingly acerbic way to phrase your complaint -- perhaps in the future you might find a way to indicate your confusion without trampling on others directly.

If you feed it into ChatGPT and request a shorter version, it comes back more or less the same. I’d sort of hoped for a nice summary.

If you wrote it, then there's no shame in asking ChatGPT to gussy it up a bit for your target audience.

> there's no shame in asking ChatGPT to gussy it up

Strongly disagree; there is plenty of shame in using LLMs to "improve" writing.

nah, only in asking it to write for you (from bullet points or a convo or something). I'm glad I don't see life in black and white, since the shades of gray are beautiful

> I'm glad I don't see [problems with using technology trained on stolen material, which consumes resources exorbitantly and disproportionately affects people in poorer areas, in the name of generating soulless, "easier-to-digest" content that looks like everything else on the internet], since [striving for mediocrity] is beautiful

FTFY.

But then the audience will complain it looks AI-written.

Someone will always find a reason to complain, missing the real point. That´s why the privacy is a lost battle, because some prefer to focus on makeup, not on the real point. This is so disappointing.

There's a lot of wtf here. Are you an AI agent?

* This article is barely-readable AI slop. If writing is not your best skill (and that's putting it mildly), why are you publishing a blog like this?

* You have an ad for an AI app on every page of your website. Couldn't you use that to fix your writing?

* Clicking 'Explore' on the top of the page opens a pop-under to office.com for some reason? I also clicked the text of one of your articles, and it sent me to kaspersky.com, probably another ad.

I'm not normally judgemental to people with poor writing skills, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. This feels malicious.

Replying to: * Clicking 'Explore' on the top of the page opens a pop-under to office.com for some reason? I also clicked the text of one of your articles, and it sent me to kaspersky.com, probably another ad.

I don´t know what you talking about, all in the website works quite well (beside the ugly articles page that is a work in progress). The page is under heavy traffic and some users click HGMI (that is a hypergraph in 3d with clickable links and memory demanding). Then changing page under heavy traffic takes longer and users are still clicking the hypergraph links.

How easy you missing the point of the article which is: No matter the good will certain paths are meant to be walked. Then I offer a choice with HugstonOne App to whom may be interested. And yes, credits to legendary TIM COOK for his great contributions to society.

I don't necessarily blame people for using AI to help them write or spruce something up, however I find the tone particularly off-putting.

These excerpts show off that "AI"-tone I'm sure most people see.

>The San Bernardino case is gone from headlines. >But the backdoor? It’s in your phone. >It’s in Google’s servers. >It’s in Meta’s messages. >It’s in the legal system that always wins. >Apple’s 2016 stand wasn’t forgotten. >It was buried under the next headline. >But it’s still true.

I noticed the somewhat confused flow of the post as well. Reads a bit like a stream of consciousness. It could just be that the author didn't proofread what they wrote down over the course of the night. But I think your AI suspicion is a more likely explanation given the times we're in.