Being easier to read and understand is a sign of good writing, and being easy to follow and read does not mean something is “bland”.
The fact of the matter is that we have evidence that AI can write in such a way that the writing is judged better than human writing, as judged by humans. Dismissing the study by “betting” that the study participants didn’t like to read is unscientific nonsense, in no way comparable to what you quoted. That’s a person being confronted with facts that contradict their current beliefs and rejecting facts to maintain those beliefs.
Personally, I don’t even understand the point in refusing to believe that AI can be better at humans at some tasks. What is gained by maintaining that belief?
Being easier to read and understand is a sign of good writing, and being easy to follow and read does not mean something is “bland”.
The fact of the matter is that we have evidence that AI can write in such a way that the writing is judged better than human writing, as judged by humans. Dismissing the study by “betting” that the study participants didn’t like to read is unscientific nonsense, in no way comparable to what you quoted. That’s a person being confronted with facts that contradict their current beliefs and rejecting facts to maintain those beliefs.
Personally, I don’t even understand the point in refusing to believe that AI can be better at humans at some tasks. What is gained by maintaining that belief?