I dunno, the rest of the article feels very AI-written as well. Immediately after that, it goes into an overly in-depth bullet-pointed breakdown, it repeats information constantly...
It’s either written by an AI or I’m sorry, it’s just poorly written.
Come on, try and imagine the human being who would write that sentence.
The article is obviously AI written in its entirety.
I mean look at this sentence which randomly contains the " - " pattern twice in a row, which is then not repeated once anywhere else in the article:
> Created after the installation of the station’s first peer-to-peer local area network (PalmerLAN), the game captures - through humor, satire, and surprisingly accurate mechanics - the daily realities of early LAN administration in one of the most isolated research communities on Earth.
Using dashes twice like that is valid. It's a bit like parentheses, to frame a tangential statement between them, but with emphasis instead of quietly. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash
I use that construction in my totally human writing often enough. Some of us missed a few English classes it seems.
> Are you seriously going to claim that this is not LLM generated?
Do you see me making that claim? My comment seems to be about grammar. Do you always jump to conclusions?
> I made no comment as to the validity of the construction.
See:
> I mean look at this sentence which randomly contains the " - " pattern twice in a row
They're called parenthetical dashes. They're not random. And it's one pattern, not two. You'll find it used with parentheses (obviously) and commas as well as dashes and perhaps even other punctuation[1].
As to whether or not the post was written by AI, I don't care either way. That seems to be something you care about. But you shouldn't base those conclusions on the use of parenthetical dashes.
It’s either written by an AI or I’m sorry, it’s just poorly written.