If you set yourself free from the meaning of all the nouns in the sentence then you can get there.
Sometimes that means you exclude a good next token, or include a bad one, so a bad one gets chosen. And then once it has, the thing is going to pick whatever is most likely to come after that, which will be some malarkey because it has already emitted a nonsense token and is now using that as context. But whatever it is, it will still sound plausible because it's still choosing from the most likely things to follow what has already been emitted.
So why does it work okay as a New Yorker piece? How is their writing consistently good?
I think their secret sauce is the (implied) perspective. The impression that the author has a unique, complete, accurate take on the subject, and is letting you in on it piece by piece, in a meandering way.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.08040 https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.00901 https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01948 https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23614
