I wrote a piece and then improved it with Grammarly ! - which is better ? #askNostr #writing

Original

There were some bold attempts. But they were mostly experimental in nature — half-baked, grammatically obsolete and contextually incoherent. The focus was not on the content. It was on the writing apparatus, or to test the claims of writing aficionados. The advocacy on the pro-text side was the obvious notion of asynchronous freedom. Some of them believed in the crazy stuff - they claimed if text could be passed from one generation to the next, the reverse should also be possible - information might flow from future to the past. They named such a flow divine information - and the promise that the divine information could be made accessible to all. The idea had a circular logic - if someone read a book say ten generations from now, they will be able to build today's world in their minds. And given the rate of progress, what if they could correct the mistakes in our current thinking - through signs beyond our appreciation! Wouldn't that change our own world? Books, they thought, were the bridges to continuum - more you write, more chances you have of help from your future kins. Some of them believed that the rigor of writing opened a portal in human mind. Since information was assumed to be predisposed in entirety - the quest was only to open the pathways in our minds.

Improved version

There were bold but mostly experimental attempts at writing that often resulted in half-baked, grammatically flawed, and incoherent texts. The focus was on the writing process itself rather than the content. Proponents of this approach championed asynchronous freedom, suggesting that if text could be passed down through generations, information might also flow from the future to the past, a concept they called "divine information." They believed this information could be accessible to everyone, enabling future readers to reconstruct today's world in their minds and potentially correct our current mistakes. Books were seen as bridges to a continuum, with more writing increasing the chances of receiving insights from one's future self. They posited that the act of writing could unlock pathways in the human mind, revealing information that was presumed to be already present in potential form