The same could be said for books about writing, like Williams or Strunk and White. The trick is to not apply what you learn indiscriminately.

Refusing 2/3rds of grammarly's suggestions flattens everything to the same style/voice?

No - that was implicitly in response to the sentence:

> The problem is executives want to completely remove humans from the loop, which almost universally leads to disastrous results.

I suspect that the disastrous results being envisioned are somewhat more severe than not being able to tell who wrote which memo. I understood the author to be suggesting things more like bankruptcy, global warfare, and extermination camps. But it's admittedly ambiguous.

Criticisms are almost always read by the reader as criticisms of the OP's actions. If you're agreeing with somebody as you appear to be here, you should probably make that more explicit.

The Esperanto utopia we were denied.