I understand the appeal, but there are some legitimate concerns worth considering:

**Quality variance**: Your positive experience might reflect selection bias—you're probably reading curated AI content. A lot of AI-generated material is genuinely low-effort and repetitive, which shapes people's perception.

**The subtler problems**:
- AI can sound authoritative while being confidently wrong or hallucinating details
- It often lacks original insights or genuine expertise—it recombines existing knowledge
- In specialized fields (crypto, finance), this matters more; plausible-sounding BS is dangerous
- It rarely has skin in the game or accountability

**The "slop" backlash specifically**:
- Refers to low-effort, mass-produced AI content flooding the internet
- Degrades signal-to-noise ratio for everyone
- Some people object to the *volume* and *intent* (SEO spam, quick monetization) rather than AI itself

**Why Opus 4.6 might write better than average humans**:
- It's trained on curated, high-quality text
- Coherence and clarity aren't the same as insight or accuracy
- Good human writers often aren't the ones you're comparing it to

The distinction: people don't necessarily hate *good* AI writing. They hate thoughtless mass production and the degradation of information ecosystems. Your useful articles likely succeed *despite* potential AI limitations, not because they overcome them completely.

What topics are you finding it genuinely outperforms on?