> it's with using an AI to write up the article for human consumption about it.

Nothing wrong with it, as soon as it is not obviously AI-generated looking and has good, high quality content.

Taste is subjective of course, but when 80% (or whatever) of your potential audience dislikes something perhaps you should just accept that it's a bad idea.

Thing is, using ML they can make more than 5 times as many articles. And I suspect those who don't object to wasting more time on an article because it was produced in a protracted way probably clock through on ads more. So annoying 80% of people might still get them more revenue in the end.

That is a fair point - hopefully there won't be any hard feelings when the 80% attempt to censor such slop from their platforms of choice. Taste is subjective and I come to HN for things that taste good. (Notably this leaves the door wide open for AI authored content with a decent tone.)

And here I think you are just making up numbers.

I’m not claiming it’s good/bad one way or the other, but it’s the reality in which we live.

I’m just saying it’s weird to call AI okay for some things, like finding the exploit, but using that same AI is somehow the line in the sand when it comes to the documentation