[bonsai_spool]

Do you consider it human written? We can't let machines take over our thought.

And if we're using machines to assess this, the appropriate action is to look at the author's writing from before the time of LLMs and compare it to now.

[ameliaquining]

On the contrary, when a machine has been shown to outperform human judgment at a specific task, you should trust it over your own gut feeling, especially if you have no particular training or track record at the task.

There've been third-party evaluations of Pangram, e.g., https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/BFI_WP_2.... I personally do not think I could achieve that rate of accuracy, if you made me read a bunch of text samples and guess whether humans or AIs wrote them. Do you think you could?

[bonsai_spool]

One needs to be careful of citing papers - Pangram was not tested on the most recent models; the most recent one in that report is Claude Opus 4. Notably, Pangram does worse on news reports than on other types of textual detection tasks, and its failure depends on the model used in a way that suggests Pangram detection is very sensitive to whatever sources it was used for training.

> Do you think you could?

Not the right question. I am saying that this particular article based on its tendencies and the historical writings of this author are LLM-assisted if not wholly generated.

[scared_together]

You're asking me to actually read the article instead of responding to the comment section? Oh the humanity! ;)

The author's name in the article is linked to a list of articles attributed to her, and it's easy to advance through the list by editing the URL, like so: [0]. As other commenters point out she's the editor-in-chief so maybe she could put her name on an AI article. But I'm assuming she would not put her name on another human's work.

This lead me to [1], an article from 2018. And when comparing the old article to the OP ... I'm stumped.

They both rely on quotes from a company founder. This is a bit intentional, I wanted to pick similar articles.

They are both somewhat .. dry? They have a sincere tone, devoid of hyperactive meme-speak or jokes (presumably the hyperactivity is reserved for the advertising). The older article has one oddly casual line: "What has changed since then is, well, not much, argues Sims." The newer article has an extremely short paragraph that sticks out visually: "That payment structure is the real news." But otherwise I don't see any super-obvious difference.

They both used em-dashes.

To be honest, I could be convinced that the OP is written by the same human who wrote [1], some humans just write like LLMs after all. My intuition isn't really helping me out here, if I wanted to go further "manually" I'd have to break out Wikipedia's list of AI tells or something like that.

(EDIT: and just to be clear, Pangram also thinks the old article is human-written, which I guess is our control case).

(EDIT: in your earlier comment, you mentioned the rule of three as a sign of AI writing, but it's a pretty common pattern in human writing as well and appears in the older article: "A second offering is Codecademy Pro Intensive, which is designed to immerse learners from six to 10 weeks (depending on the coursework) in either website development, programming or data science.").

[0] https://techcrunch.com/author/connie-loizos/page/45/

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/04/as-some-pricey-coding-camp...