William Davies, “What is LinkedIn?":

One answer provided is the kind of weird, syncopated prose style seen above: a succession of Pinterest slogans combined into verse, that seems so eager to express its depths of humanity that you instantly question whether it really has any. It’s a style of writing that reaches so hard for meaning, that it ends up as a set of free-floating signifiers, which refuse all interpretation. You can’t misunderstand something that evades understanding altogether. The lack of conflict, the lack of humour, the lack of any tangible referents, creates the feel of a new kind of cyborg that seeks an eerie peace, honesty and consensus. If you asked the author (wherever they may sit on the human-LLM continuum) what they meant by any of it, they would be able to do little else than simply repeat themselves with even greater sincerity.

Later he also refers to “gloopy consensus,” which is a great line. One final excerpt:

Rhetoric that achieves such consensus is not machine-like, de-humanising or cold. On the contrary, it is warm, empathic and respectful, a little like how chatbots reply “You’re right” every time they are challenged or queried. Culturally, the spectre of this ‘mindful slop’ has already been pushed to an extreme dystopian limit by the remarkable Pluribus, a science fiction in which the entire global population (minus 13 surviving humans) has become taken over by a single AI hive mind. Part of Pluribus’s genius is to depict a world in which anger has become taboo, positive feedback is relentless, and empirical reality is completely malleable. This is a form of hell, in which conflict, disagreement and frustration have evaporated (save for those of the main protagonist).