[layer8]

The thing is, these stylistic patterns existed before AI, and weren’t completely atypical. Maybe you’re using LLMs so much that you’re over-associating them with AI now. Or maybe the author is using LLMs so much that he’s unconsciously adopted some of the patterns in his own writing.

[toraway]

Well he literally confirms it was from ChatGPT in a later reply, so there's that.

And his original draft is conspicuously missing the telltale "it's not X -- it's Y" and overall breathless dramatic flair that people like the poster you're replying to (correctly) picked up on.

https://xcancel.com/PlumbNick/status/2016590894485385347#m

[volkk]

i think the much higher probability isn't that this guy wrote literally like an LLM before LLMs came out, but rather that he just used an LLM to write all of it. You can see even more of these examples directly on his campaign site.

[toraway]

And despite the downvotes, you were correct.

https://xcancel.com/PlumbNick/status/2016590894485385347#m

[volkk]

thank you. even without this tweet, i was willing to die on this hill. certainly feels nice to place these obnoxious HN know-it-alls into their place.

[GibbonBreath]

> certainly feels nice to place these obnoxious HN know-it-alls into their place.

You don't have to take the time to explain your reasoning if you don't want to, but "obnoxious know it all" is not a stone you should throw while at the same time refusing to explain yourself and saying anyone who can't see what you see is necessarily missing the obvious.

[volkk]

it's too difficult honestly. there are a lot of the classic easy traps -- "it's not just X, it's y" which are a dead giveaway, especially when they're used like 3-4 times in one essay. But the harder to spot ones, IMO, are ones where the overall tone is unnecessarily complex. E.g:

"When replacement is cheaper than retention, the decision gets framed as strategy instead of consequence."

This sentence is tight and on paper reads well, but it's robotic. It's kind of like taking a dead simple if/else statement that's pleasurable to read into a one line ternary statement. Technically a one line sentence, but now I have to re-read it like 5 times to understand it. The flow is dead.

Another example:

'AI becomes the excuse, not the cause. It’s the clean narrative that hides what’s actually happening: experienced workers being swapped out through global labor substitution while leadership talks about “efficiency” and “the future of work.”'

Starts off with a short & trite sentence (LLMs loves this if you don't steer it away). The other thing LLMs _love_ to do unprompted is: "It's the X: _insert_next_loaded_statement_here"

It's hard to get my point across, and I hope you kinda see it? I'm not a linguist, but these patterns are literally in every piece of LLM writing I've ever seen.

[GibbonBreath]

Again, you don't have to explain yourself, just don't be rude about it. It's hypocritical to call someone obnoxious and a know it all while you are engaging in schoolyard behavior and refusing to allow them to challenge your reasoning.

Saying nothing is an option. Other people who agree with you will be happy to explain their reasoning. Or maybe they won't and the conversation quietly fades away. Both are preferable.