This is a great example of a piece with enough meaningful and useful content in it that it's very clear the author had something of value to deliver, and I'm grateful for that... but enough repetitive LLM-output that I'm very annoyed by the end.

Actually, let me be specific: everything from "The Rise of Retrieval-Augmented Generation" up to "The Fundamental Limitations of RAG for Complex Documents" is good and fine as given, then from "The Emergence of Agentic Search - A New Paradigm" to "The Claude Code Insight: Why Context Changes Everything" (okay, so the tone of these generated headings is cringey but not entirely beyond the pale) is also workable. Everything else should have been cut. The last four paragraphs are embarrassing and I really want to caution non-native English speakers: you may not intuitively pick up on the associations that your reader has built with this loudly LLM prose style, but they're closer to quotidian versions of the [NYT] delusion reporting than you likely mean to associate with your ideas.

[NYT]: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/technology/ai-chatbots-de...