It does. It's still a good text. It's also definitely a result of human-AI collaboration (to what extent - hard to say; could be AI edits in human-written text, could be a longer prompt and AI expanding it, something like that).
The it's-not-X-it's-Y formula is the most visible tell. It's overused, being used, I think, 3 times, with 2 being slightly less obvious. This-was-X-and-now-it's-Y is also overrepresented.
It's still not a bad comment. We can discuss it just fine. What we can't do now is assume this is entirely an EastLondonCoder's text, so we can't use it to form an opinion of that person (whether good or bad) based on its content (since we don't know how much of it comes from that person, and how much from the machine). Some will also form an opinion (good or bad) about the poster simply because they used AI.
That's an Internet discourse of 2026, in my experience. I wonder what's next.
Single sentence paragraphs for rhetorical emphasis. I count six of those.
Abrupt or elliptical sentences, often with a melodramatic tone. Example: "AI changes that." "It obviously can. So can a prison."
Inconsistencies one wouldn't expect a human to make: "fraud detection" is ok in paragraph 5; worrisome in paragraph 9.
I'm not vehemently against using AI as a drafting tool, but if I were to do that, I would be inclined to signal that somehow to avoid the appearance of dissimulation; just as I would if I were paraphrasing another author.
If the points are good, then good. If you didn't notice the AI tells, does it really matter? It's still intelligible discourse.
Is there an actual quantitative check that says "AI or not AI"? I'm genuinely curious.
So far as I can tell, AI prose checking - at least vs the frontier models - has been little better than vibe-based. Which, well, that's just another way of saying Red doesn't like Blue. And we got enough of that.
> Is there an actual quantitative check that says "AI or not AI"? I'm genuinely curious.
There are plenty of them that will give you a number, Pangram is a commonly-used one. Of course, whether they actually work well is a different matter. In my experience they have a huge false positive rates. I haven't tested the inverse.