Yeah, that was my thought too. It felt far too direct and oddly intimate in what it cited and quoted. I asked ChatGPT to write a generic obituary in an NYT style and it came back with things like, “As news of [Name]'s untimely death spread, fans and colleagues flooded social media with tributes and messages of condolences. Many praised [Name]'s kindness, generosity, and unique voice, and expressed their shock and sadness at the loss of such a talented and beloved figure.” And “[Name] will be deeply missed by their family, friends, and countless fans, who will always remember them as a bright and inspiring presence in the online community.” Which feels like the right way to approach the topic. This, on the other hand… focuses far too much on written word and research instead of impact and legacy. It felt tone deaf.

For comparison, here’s an article from a fan: https://twitter.com/ejdickson/status/1656425063321677825 - or for the direct link, https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/heathe... Not that the article is any less frank about it, but at least it addresses some other points.