Honestly, I wonder how many people are still reading long LinkedIn posts from start to finish.
LinkedIn seems to be getting more serious about penalizing posts that look AI-written, or at least AI-assisted. But from the reader's side, that already feels a little outdated.
If this were a novel, a poem, or an essay where the writing itself is the experience, I would understand the concern more. But for most LinkedIn posts, I am not there to admire the prose. I want to know what the person is trying to say. Is there an interesting idea? Is there a useful observation? Is there an insight worth my attention?
That is what I care about.
I don't need a post to sound "human" in some performative way. Human-written or AI-written, a shallow post is still shallow. A polished post with no real observation is still empty.
And as a reader, I increasingly use AI on my side too. When I see a long post, I often ask AI to summarize what the person is saying. If the idea is useful, I keep it. If it is not, I move on. I do not always go back and read the original.
The post is often just a container. What I want is the thought inside it.
So maybe LinkedIn is solving the wrong problem. Instead of hunting for AI-written posts by their surface style, why not give readers a "summarize this post" button?
Not every reader wants more human-like writing. Some of us just want to know: what is being said, and is there anything there?