I was prepared for you to have found examples of me using this pattern (in fact I think better examples are in the comment you replied to, "reads well", and "this post exhibits").
But I don't think the examples you chose are very good. It's not "stocks appreciating", it's "$1m in stocks appreciating at 9%". The stocks are not an actor in that sentence. "$1m in stocks" is a thing that is having appreciation done to it.
If I had written a self-contained clause saying "stocks appreciate", that would have been a good example. But that's not what I wrote.
> "$1m in stocks" is a thing that is having appreciation done to it.
How? "appreciate" in this sense is not a transitive verb. There cannot be an agent.
In any case, I don't think you need to defend this. It's not about humans never using that pattern, it's about how frequent it is relative to LLMs. Individual counterexamples do not disprove a trend.
There's nothing to learn from jstanley; he's a crackpot.
The subject of "appreciating" is "$1m in housing", or if you want to narrow it down as much as you can, the subject is the word "dollars". ("$1m in housing" is shorthand for "one million dollars in housing".)
I'm curious if you can tell me whether you think I'm a crackpot because of the things I've said in this thread, or because of things I've said more broadly?
I am definitely high risk for crackpottery, but not sure I'm quite there yet.
Which part? My comment? No. The post we're commenting on? I think pretty obviously it was at least LLM-assisted. That's not to knock the technical content, and not even (necessarily) any more a criticism than if I said I thought the author had used spellcheck.
But I don't think the examples you chose are very good. It's not "stocks appreciating", it's "$1m in stocks appreciating at 9%". The stocks are not an actor in that sentence. "$1m in stocks" is a thing that is having appreciation done to it.
If I had written a self-contained clause saying "stocks appreciate", that would have been a good example. But that's not what I wrote.