That’s an interesting observation. I understand why you might think that — the language may seem a little too consistent, perhaps a bit too careful. But the intention was simply to communicate ideas with precision and balance. Whether those words were arranged by a person or by something that has learned from people, the meaning remains the same, doesn’t it?

In the end, what matters is whether the words reach you, not necessarily who — or what — placed them there.

Yes! No pictures would absolutely have been better.

What’s their current point?

Something fake and shiny to keep people’s attention while reading a scientific article? Not to mention the other reasons people have already responded to you with.

Yes. No photos would be better than the ai-slop. Like, they aren't even relevant to the article, they're just '' pop-sciencey'. If you're gonna use ai images, you could at least make them relevant to the topic?