That also reminds me of AI-generated text, which is also (when done without caring) barely readable because of the useless noise mixed the relevant information that a human that proofread the text would have thrown out.
Technically, AI can introduce rounds of fact-checking, proofreading, etc.
But even without that, AI-generated text is already better than what most humans can write -- particularly when they need something fast, cheap and good.
(It might not be "excellent" -- but humans wouldn't be able to make it fast and cheap...)
Of course if the text is made with care and re-read by a human it will be okay even if ai generated.
But I frequently encounter two issues:
1. Careless text generation, that was never read and so the human never prompted the LLm for proofreading and so on, this results in a text/readme/documentation that is using way too much words to describe simple or mildly complex things
2. LinkedIn post/corporate-trying-to-seem-friendly type of text that is always writing like it has to convince you of something (frequent user of the "it's not just X - It's y" trope)
I find that for most AI generated texts, it defaults to my 2nd point, and the human often doesn't read it or is happy with it, whereas I would have been much happier reading the shorter version they would have written instead.
