Then I don’t know this “feeling”. To me it looks like the kind of professional writing I’ve been doing for the last 20 years.

It’s bonkers that using good grammar and punctuation is now considered a bad thing on the internet.

Note that this is also just how many engineering-minded people prefer to write when describing a system or tool when the goal is to sell or the audience isn't technical.

Compare with what I think a lot of us are highly used to reading, which is copy written by salespeople, or by management-minded people with sales in mind.

IMO, the way the copy is written is not like minimally-guided AI, aside from the clarity (which is the good part of AI writing). AI has a different character/tone. It tends to sound a little more like a salesperson, or a 50's PSA video.

You're most likely incorrect, the post is almost certainly written with AI. It has all the tropes.

AI is heavily trained on polished corporate marketing / memo speak. I think if you've had to write copy long enough you'll sound like that naturally.

(See LinkedIn posts from before 2020 - they're only missing the emoji basically.)

I mean, so what?

Seriously. Is there any problem with "AI-sounding" writing? It's grammatically correct. It's readable. The only issue I can possibly think of is that you perceive AI negatively, and that you project this negativity onto everything that tangentially touches AI.

> It's grammatically correct. It's readable.

It’s overly verbose. It’s repetitive. It’s boring. It doesn’t flow right.

If people don’t want to read what you wrote about your product, they won’t use (let alone pay for) your product. Pointing out bad copy is perfectly valid and helpful criticism.

Will take this feedback! Thanks.

To be clear, I wasn’t directly criticising your post, just answering the question of the “problem with "AI-sounding" writing”.

If verbosity, repetitiveness, boring and flow are the problem, then just call those out. No need to blame it on AI. Humans don't write perfectly.