The first one sounds spammy. Not mentioned by the article: most writing algorithms are also tuned (however mildly) for SEO since their whole purpose is to generate content for algorithmic search engine ranking.

In other words, algorithms write for other algorithms, not for you. See enough of their bullshit and you'll recognize it quickly.

That doesn't really matter, though. Both blocks are wretched. Copywriting is a fairly thankless task at best but a decent writer can make the boring stuff interesting. The top block is an artificial attempt to make statistics interesting while the bottom block is burying the lede. What the article proves is that humans can write as badly as algorithms, not that algorithms can write as well as humans.

Back in the dark ages (1991) we decided to type gibberish in 4-15 letter strings into MacWrite and then spellcheck it. The results sounded remarkably similar to Skinny Puppy lyrics. They were not, however, Skinny Puppy lyrics and while many people couldn't immediately tell which was computer and which was Nivek Ogre, one is definitely better.

A Pollack is still a Pollack even if most people just think it's drips on canvas.