I assume it's because the article appears to be, if not AI slop, then certainly something that reads very much like it has gone all the way through an LLM's digestive tract and come out the other end. Perhaps the odd piece of sweetcorn or pepper seed can be found, but I for one would prefer to dine elsewhere.

I vouched for the sibling comment, which seemed innocuous and contained (I felt) the most interesting part.

Dine elsewhere if you’d like, but I’d ask if you find your point ironic considering the core argument in the post. If there is more concrete feedback that you have about the voice or style I’ll take it.

I don't, as my point applies regardless of the article's contents: that any downvotes of the submitter's comments are perhaps due to people not liking LLM-generated content, such as this article appears to be. (Being a person made of meat, rather than an LLM, I had to get my own opinion of LLM prose squeezed in there too - but it's a side issue, and you can ignore it if you like.)

Regarding the style, no concrete feedback I'm afraid, other than the repetition of "upstream" sounding like the LLM tic of the day. Other than that, I just got that LLM vibe from the writing, and, as above, perhaps I wasn't the only one. Some discussion here of some LLM tropes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47291513 - which may apply.

Thank you for the detailed response!

I think it's opposite actually. This article is good in content, but it's not well written in the usual AI sense. The most interesting point (to me), that AI fiction has recurring characters, comes halfway down almost as a digression.