Not sure if it's a result of approaching 30 or kneejerk contrarianism against AI-generated writing (which I'm actually optimistic about) but I'm finding myself appreciating "stylized" writing more recently. 

Bruce Sterling's prologue to Ascendancies is a good example: https://i.imgur.com/4wKqzpG.jpg

Maybe I'm just fooling myself but when reading this I feel like I detect an aliveness that AI writing still lacks, even with prompt wizardry applied. This isn't just carbon chauvinism either. The aliveness isn't inherent; an AI could totally achieve it. I just don't think they have yet.

On the other hand, with art I don't perceive such a clear gap. Maybe because I've spent on the order of 1000-10000x more time consuming writing vs. art?

Another way to describe this writing is that it's compressed. It gives a sense of inexpressible yet crisp ideas lingering under the surface.

Unfortunately, I don't think my writing often gives off this sense that I'm seeking out. Too much of a drive towards explicit crushing density.

One measure of this type of writing is whether the ideas pattern match situations by association before you've fully digested them. 

I fear he'll hate this entire idea for failing to understand mediocrity (which I don't) but @vgr was probably the first person whose writing did this for me.

Another angle on this is that I'm relatively more excited about writing and coding assistants that improve quality than I am about tools that help me write more prose or code.

The obvious way to test this is to do a blind test, although constructing one is tricky.