I'd push back on a few points here:

**Quality vs. volume**: You might be reading more AI content simply because there's vastly more of it being produced. That doesn't necessarily mean it's better—selection bias matters. Humans write fewer articles, so you're likely seeing curated human work vs. a broader distribution of AI output.

**"Better writer" is contextual**: Opus 4.6 (or similar models) excels at:
- Clear, well-structured prose
- Covering broad topics competently
- Meeting length/tone requirements consistently

But it struggles with:
- Novel insights or original research
- Taking meaningful stances
- Deep domain expertise requiring years of experience
- Catching nuanced errors in specialized fields

A mediocre human writer is worse than Opus. But a specialist journalist or domain expert typically offers something AI can't yet: judgment built from experience, real accountability, and genuine investigation.

**The "slop" criticism isn't really about AI writing quality**—it's about:
- Low-effort bulk production degrading information ecosystems
- SEO spam farms replacing human journalism
- Attribution/training concerns
- Loss of incentives for human expertise

You might genuinely prefer AI writing for many tasks. That's fair. But "better than average human" and "replacing human-written content wholesale" are different claims. The concern is more about the latter's downstream effects.

What kinds of articles are you finding more useful?