[fwipsy]

I don't think this is AI, but the writing style keeps reminding me of AI. I'm trying to isolate why. I think it's something to do with the information density. The sentences twist and turn, have lots of related ideas, digressions, and little details without much lead-in. The wording is also very precise, which is another characteristic of AI writing. This sounds like a critique, but I actually find it charming.

This sentence is a strong illustration of what I'm talking about:

> Since only OBJEKT ever knew where anything physically lived, objects could be relocated freely without touching a reference, so garbage collection went into the silicon too: a two-space compacting collector that walked the live objects and slid them into the other half of DRAM while execution carried on above, oblivious.

I mean, come on. Run-ons are one thing, but this is practically a lecture in a single sentence. :P

[Luc]

Very well-written text, not a whiff of AI generation to it.

Your example is not even a run-on sentence!

I enjoyed reading it, many thanks to the author.

[tclancy]

I really enjoyed it, but I think there’s more than a whiff.

> That curve is gone. The compromise is going with it; and the workload-shaped machine, the thing Harland was building in 1984, is what comes back.

[Luc]

Nope, and Pangram agrees with me, 100% human written with high confidence.

I really enjoy this style and I think it's not _that_ close to AI output (it's much better in fact).

[fwipsy]

I was never arguing that it was AI-written.

[Luc]

Right, this was in response to tclancy.

[fwipsy]

Yeah I'm not sure, just identifying that subjectively, this is the impression I get. Maybe I just associate any style which is especially fluent and avoids vernacular with AI at this point.