Authors use humour as a form of connection with their audience. It's a way of saying hey I'm a human and I have the same human experiences as you dear reader. Take the first paragraph for example:

> Wednesday, 11:15 AM. I'm at the PureGym entrance doing the universal gym app dance. Phone out, one bar of signal that immediately gives up because apparently the building is wrapped in aluminum foil

It says, "Hey I'm a human who goes to the gym and experiences the same frustrations as you do". Now imagine for a second this paragraph was written by AI. The AI has never been to the gym, the AI doesn't feel impatience trying to pass through the turnstile, the AI has never experienced the anxiety of a dodgy internet connection in a large commercial building. The purpose of any humour in this paragraph is completely undermined if you assume it was actually written by AI.

So please don't conflate being anti-LLM with being anti-humour. It's just the opposite. We want humour because we want to feel a connection with our fellow humans and for the same reason we should also want writing that comes from a human, not a machine.

> So please don't conflate being anti-LLM with being anti-humour. It's just the opposite.

I'm not.

I'm trying to analyse, or hypothesise, why this author's particular writing style seemed to trigger people's nascent LLM warning heuristics.

I considered the humour, because, well, other people brought it up. From the surrounding discussion, it seemed that the jocular writing style was one of the points generating suspicion.