What happens when you tell a financial figure with 118,000 followers that his 5,000-word AI crisis piece has good research but the writing reads like AI even though it isn't?
The style debate is fun but kind of beside the point. This piece moved markets. Not because the writing was good or bad, but because someone wrote a specific future down in enough detail that people acted on it. That's the part worth paying attention to.
No offense but, I don't think your rewrite added anything. The original post was clear and communicated his point. Your rewrite is a different style but, doesn't communicate it better. I find his writing clearer and more to the point. You've added more stylistic prose but, this is an economic analysis not a novel.
It just feels like you're making an almost meaningless critique of piece that actually did go viral and did move the markets so, it clearly communicated to its audience.
No offense taken, unlike Citrini who can't handle critique. Thanks for reading and commenting, and you're applying a standard about what writing should be that actually proves my point. AI output is the most fluent writing in history and says virtually nothing. My critique isn't about style or that economic analysis needs to be a novel or have flourish. It is about substance and what it means when 100 hours of work is indistinguishable from something generated by a prompt.
The style debate is fun but kind of beside the point. This piece moved markets. Not because the writing was good or bad, but because someone wrote a specific future down in enough detail that people acted on it. That's the part worth paying attention to.
That's exactly what I talk about in my post about vibe laundering! https://www.notyourtypicalfinancebro.com/p/vibe-laundering-pt-1-on-citrini-research
No offense but, I don't think your rewrite added anything. The original post was clear and communicated his point. Your rewrite is a different style but, doesn't communicate it better. I find his writing clearer and more to the point. You've added more stylistic prose but, this is an economic analysis not a novel.
It just feels like you're making an almost meaningless critique of piece that actually did go viral and did move the markets so, it clearly communicated to its audience.
No offense taken, unlike Citrini who can't handle critique. Thanks for reading and commenting, and you're applying a standard about what writing should be that actually proves my point. AI output is the most fluent writing in history and says virtually nothing. My critique isn't about style or that economic analysis needs to be a novel or have flourish. It is about substance and what it means when 100 hours of work is indistinguishable from something generated by a prompt.