It's not just that, it's that parts of the
words are very hard to read. They've been smoothed over. Rather than being drawn to the information content, my attention skips over it like a stone over a lake. Some of the paragraphs are mostly yours: others clearly aren't.
Comparing the two images is a good analogy. You instructed the AI to remove the keyboards, and it completely changed the entire contents of both screens, as well as the hand holding the phone. I'm not sure what app has a modular plug as its "main screen" icon, but that distracts me from the whole rest of the image: even the cardboard surface of the bottom part of the laptop. It's less clear what you were trying to convey with the image than before.
Human-to-human communication is not something that benefits from inserting generative AI in the middle. This whole article is confusing: like a collaboration between a pointillist and an impressionist, except they didn't agree on what they were trying to say, so the picture can only be understood by working backwards and trying to model the production process in your head.
> But—and this matters—the sandbox remains someone else's. The app defines the possibility space. The platform determines what's possible. Users create within the system, never of the system.
I was going to use this as an example of a paragraph I understood, but then I looked closer: I have no idea what the distinction between "within" and "of" that you're trying to draw actually is. Sure, I know what you're trying to say, but which one is meant to be "within", and which one is "of"? The slop header image is a symptom of the broken authorial process that led to this article, not the primary issue with it: the main problem is that you started out with something to say, and ended up with confusing, verbose, and semi-meaningless output.
Most people can write better than this. You can write better than this.