"Good" or "bad" writing cannot be decided in vacuum: it is decided by the culture examining it. One example strongly tied to culture is cliched writing. Thing

"Good" or "bad" writing cannot be decided in vacuum: it is decided by the culture examining it. One example strongly tied to culture is cliched writing. Things become cliche as they are get overused; no amount of cleverness in the cliche itself can overcome this. Claude's writing has rapidly become cliche because it uses the same pool of stock phrases and words. People pick up on this and have the same reaction as they do to any other cliche piece. Let's take two works generally seen as good: if Lord of the Rings or Foundation released today, they would probably be panned as cliche because they created those tropes in the first place, which future authors copied or built upon. So yes, most would not think this is poorly written 20 years ago because this style didn't exist yet and it wasn't cliche. Claude vibe-writing isn't "bad" because it is grammatically or structurally bad. It's bad because it's overused and signals to the reader - whether intentional or not - certain things about how much the prompter values the written piece.