I made it through because the content was interesting, but I am definitely not going to read more from this author because the AI-wordsmithing is so grating (I read loads of it at work, don't need to read any more of it).
FWIW, on your own blog, the most recent post also reads as at least AI helped "Navigator Theory". This sentence in particular sticks out: "They affect what the person notices, what they dismiss, what they measure, what they trust, and what they do when reality pushes back."
The one earlier post I read does not ("toxicity of ideas").
And fwiw, online detectors seems to agree with my own judgement here.
> Hesiod felt it. Plato theorized it. Polybius mechanized it. Sallust prosecuted it (while guilty). Ibn Khaldun put it on a timer. Five civilizations, twenty-one centuries, one diagnosis. The only thing missing was proof.
> For most of history, “too many assholes ruin everything” remained a vibe. A well-documented, five-civilization vibe, but a vibe. Then, in the twentieth century, it became math.
> Sallust, it turns out, was doing game theory in a toga. He just didn’t have the notation.
> That’s not my characterization — it’s the title of the paper. And the researchers defined the term with clinical precision
> That single belief turns out to be a genetic marker. Everything else travels with it.
^^ that one in particular is a VERY strong Claude-ism
> Now, the finding inside the finding
> The study is not a catalog of monsters [...] It’s a measurement [...] with polling-grade precision
> Political violence wasn’t rhetorical; it was a body count
The trend that bothers me the most is excessive use of the em dash accompanied by awkward use of semicolons.
> Cooperators who are scattered among cheaters get eaten alive — the lone honest man in a crooked ward is not noble, mathematically speaking; he’s lunch.
There's also the not-quite-right logical link between clauses (I see this a lot in Opus output):
> Parasites are a constant; every era grows them to maximum greed, because that’s what parasites do.
("era grows them" doesn't fit with "that's what parasites do." If the era grows them, the parasites aren't doing their own growth.)
Yeah, I've changed my evaluation. The lists didn't do it for me, because they don't follow the usual rule-of-three, but the "genetic marker ... travels" line seems egregious. And the "not X, but Y".
Every one of those is also an example of how people have written and spoken since before AI existed. But then, I don't 'Claude', so I'm not sensitised by exposure.
I also got strong AI vibes, but I enjoyed the content. I thought it was a interesting summary of topics I've read many times before and even if the content was AI-assisted, does it matter? It seems there was a strong guiding hand in presenting a popular topic in a new way.
It matters because I don't like the style. I wouldn't like it if a human wrote it. I don't like the style so much that I won't read things written with it.
So maybe she had something interesting to say, but it was not communicated to me because I bounced.