It depends on how clumsy you are. Some people just are. Sounds like you're not. Lucky for you.

But it's no way to live. Get some help.

Let's say that Saudi or Qatar (Typhoon users) vs. Israel (F-35) is highly unlikely, but I wouldn't say impossible. It's really hot there, there's not enough water, and the Earth is heating up. Throw in some religion, and there's quite the possibility of something going hot.

Saudi pilots are so bad that nothing saves them.

Flying a fighter jet is super fun. Becoming a fighter pilot is a privilege enjoyed by wealthy Saudi princes. They are, by far, the worst students at Pensacola, mastering only the basics of takeoff, landing, some flying, and the fundamentals of weapons and radar systems. They cannot hold their own, no matter what aircraft they fly.

oh so that's where æ comes from!

What is this, that episode of The Twilight Zone called "to serve man"?

As a reader (and sometimes sender) of emails, I don't know why wanting my emails to be formatted when I'm reading them, so that some text is bigger than others makes me a scammer, but ok. Personally, I think it's quite nice when the 2fa email has the code in giant font so it's easier to pick out.

Reader here: maybe listen to reader feedback? If your goal is to write into the ether to generate training data for LLMs, then by all means, continue! As a human, I'm trying to communicate ideas and thoughts to people. When people don't understand what I'm trying to transmit to them, I adjust my transmissions to better and more. effectively communicate with them.

My goal is really... Nothing, I guess? I write things that I found interesting. If you look at the submission I wasn't even the person that did it, someone else found it and posted it here.

My blog is not for other humans, it is mostly for me. Sometimes other humans find it interesting and that is fine, but they're almost never the target.

If my objective was to have popular blog posts read by other humans, yes, I would definitely take the feedback by heart (even if the way OP worded is unnecessarily passive aggressive). But no, it is not, and this is why I said what I said (that not everything is for everyone).

hundredaires in the house!

Other than humans getting apoplectic at the word "delve" and — emdashes, can you explain and give some examples or say more about how AI-isms hurt readability?

Having encountered this spread across our orgs greenfield codebases which made heavy use of AI in the last 90 days: Restating the same information in slightly different formats, with slightly different levels of detail in several places, in a way that is unnecessary. Like a "get up and running quickly" guide in the documentation which has far more detail than the section it's supposed to be summarizing. Jarringly inconsistent ways of providing information within a given section (a list of endpoints and their purposes, followed by a table of other endpoints, followed by another list of endpoints). Unnecessary bulleted lists all over the places which could read more clearly as single sentences or a short paragraph. Disembodied documentation files nested in the repos that restate the contents of the README, but in a slightly different format/voice. Thousands of single line code comments that just restate what is already clear to the reader if they just read the line it's commenting on. That's before getting into any code quality issues themselves.

I've noticed AI generated docs frequently contain bulleted or numbered lists of trivialities, like file names - AI loves describing "architecture" by listing files with a 5 word summary of what they do which is probably not much more informative than the file name. Superficially it looks like it might be useful, but it doesn't contribute any actually useful context and has very low information density.

A piece of information, or the answer to a question, could exist in the documentation but is not in a format that's easily readable to humans. You ask the AI to add certain information, and it responds with "I already added it". But the AI doesn't "read" documents the way humans read.

For instance, say you need urgent actions from other teams. To this effect you order an AI to write a document and you give it information. The AI produces a document following it's own standard document format with the characteristic AI fluff. But this won't work well, because upon seeing the urgent call for action the teams will rush to understand what they need to do, and they will be greeted by a corporate-pr-sounding document that does not address their urgent needs first and foremost.

Yes, you could tell the AI how to make the document little by little... but at that point you might as well write it manually.