Is this post AI-written? The repeated lists with highlighted key points, the "it's not just [x], but [y]" and "no [a] just [b]" scream LLM to me. It would be good to know how much of this post and this project was human-built.
I was on the fence about such an identification. The first "list with highlighted key points" seemed quite awkward to me and definitely raised suspicion (the overall list doesn't have quite the coherence I'd expect from someone who makes the conscious choice; and the formatting exactly matches the stereotype).
But if this is LLM content then it does seem like the LLMs are still improving. (I suppose the AI flavour could be from Grammarly's new features or something.)
It's interesting... Different LLM models seem to have a few sentence structures that they seem to vastly overprefer. GPT seems to love "It's not just X, it's Y", Claude loves "The key insight is..." and Gemini, for me, in every second response, uses the phrase "X is the smoking gun". I hear the smoking gun phrase around 5 times a day at this point.
It's hated by everyone, why would people imitate it? You're inventing a rationale that either doesn't exist or would be stupider than the alternative. The obvious answer here it they just used an LLM.
I think that the style itself is very clear and has its advantages, it's hated only because it's from LLMs, which are not liked when used without judgement (which is often the case).
So, someone who falls on the side of not completely hating LLMs for everything (which is most people), could easily copy the style by accident.
I love the style it was written in. I felt a bit like reading a detective novel, exploring all terrible things that happened and waiting for a plot twist and hero comming in and saving the day.
Real humans write like that though. And LLMs are trained on text not speech. Maybe they should get trained on movie subtitles, but then movie characters also don't speak like real humans.
"LinkedIn Standard English" is just the overly-enthusiastic marketing speak that all the wannabe CEOs/VCs used to spout. LLMs had to learn it somewhere
No, they do it because they're mode-collapsed, use similar training algorithms (or even distillation on each other's outputs) and have a feedback loop based on scraping the web polluted with the outputs of previous gen models. This makes annoying patterns come and go in waves. It's pretty likely that in the next generation of models the "it's not just X, it's Y" pattern will disappear entirely, but another will annoy everyone.
This is purely an artifact of training and has nothing to do with real human writing, which has much better variety.
"What if you can't tell the difference?" Yeah, what if it becomes impossible to spot who's a lazy faker who outsourced their thinking? Doesn't that sound great?!
What's exhausting is getting through a ten-paragraph article and realising there was only two paragraphs of actual content, then having to wade back through it to figure out which parts came from the prompt, and which parts were entirely made up by the automated sawdust injector.
That's not an AI problem, it's a a general blog post problem. Humans inject their own sawdust all the time. AI, however, can write concisely if you just tell it to. Perhaps you should call this stuff "slop" without the AI and then it doesn't matter who/what wrote it because it's still slop regardless.
I completely agree with your parent that it's tedious seeing this "fake and gay" problem everywhere and wonder what an unwinnable struggle it must be for the people who feel they have to work out if everything they read was AI written or not.
It used to require some real elbow grease to write blogspam, now it's much easier.
I hardly ever go through a post fisking it for AI tells, they leap out at me now whether I want them to or not. As the density of them increases my odds of closing the tab approach one.
It's not a pleasant time to read Show HNs but it just seems to be what's happening now.
It never used to be a general blog post problem. It was a problem with the kinds of blogs I'd never read to begin with, but "look, I made a thing!" was generally worth reading. Now, I can't even rely on "look, I made a thing!" blog posts to accurately describe the author's understanding of the thing they made.
I see your point. You need to recalibrate how to decide what to read since the proxy has changed its meaning. I found a similar issue when monetized Youtubers started making things. It used to be amazing to see some hobby project that was a little bit sophisticated but now big stars have lots of money and their full-time job is doing incredible projects just to make videos of them. It's not AI but it's something that didn't used to exist. I'm thinking channels like "Stuff Made Here" and "I Did A Thing" that sound humble but doing difficult, expensive projects that have no purpose except to look good on a video.
I came back around 2017*, expecting the same nice experience I had with VB3 to 6.
What a punch in the face it was...
I honestly cannot fathom anyone developing natively for windows (or even OSX) at this day and age.
Anything will be a webapp or a rust+egui multi-plataform developed on linux, or nothing. It's already enough the amount of self-hate required for android/ios.
* not sure the exact date. It was right in the middle of the WPF crap being forced as "the new default".*
I analyzed the test using Pangram, which is apparently reliable, it say "Fully human Written" without ambiguity.[1]
I personally like the content and the style of the article. I never managed to accept going through the pain to install and use Visual Studio and all these absurd procedures they impose to their users.
These days I'm always wondering whether what I'm reading is LLM-slop or the actual writing of a person who contracted AI-isms by spending hours a day talking to them.
