>This work was partly supported by using OpenAI’s GPT for drafting and editing assistance, and Grammarly for grammar and style suggestions.

these things should be disclaimed at the top, not the bottom. moreover, HN should have some kind of a tag for [AI-generated content], ideally. otherwise, the opportunities for wasting the readers' time are endless

It's a work of fiction. If you were entertained, how does it matter whether it was a human or a machine who wrote it? And does the degree matter?

the works of fiction should inflame the imagination through originality and the workings on the reader's inner sense. it is the exact realm where I don't want AI to be present.

the article itself is only an analysis of an already present fictional world, created by humans. such content is secondary- or third-rate in nature.

also, the focus on being simply 'entertained' sounds rather depressing to me

I don't want to communicate with a computer. I want to communicate with humans.

Yeah it matters. Tom7 is entertaining because he acts like he isn't struggling but we know he does. Ross Scott's game dungeon is entertaining because of his struggle with dragging old shit into the present.

Shining a laser through a silicon crystal faceted by innumerable human experience is interesting, but that laser does not engage with the human experience of endeavor / struggle.

It loses an important facet of experience.