I would. LLM writing is painful, but I don't think working to avoid their idiosyncrasies is doing anybody any good. I also don't think it's painful because of those idiosyncrasies, but because of a certain inhuman je ne sais pas throughout the entire prose.
Well, the thing about the text is... if it somehow wasn't AI generated, it would be extraordinarily overwritten. I believe both stories are wrong, and wrong for the same reason. belongs in a Raymond Chandler novel, not a description of computer infrastructure choices.
I should also say, you're right that avoiding LLM phrase is bad. But thing about such phrases is that they something like glue in someone's writing to connect what might otherwise seem like a sequence of statements. But LLMs tend to both overuse them, misuse them and do that because there isn't much logic to their underlying statements.
I'd put it as, the very best writing can just use a lot of simple, declarative sentences. Decent, not extraordinary writing may need a few such constructs to take the reader in the direction the author intend. And you can use these constructs in a sort-of "poetic" way if you want to land in the land of conceptionality or something.
But the key thing is that with AIs, their output is subtly wrong everywhere, in a way that most human action doesn't follow (usually coherent syntax implies coherent semantics but not so much with AI). And so there really isn't good glue-phrase to use keep those semi-thoughts together.
