people saying this is AI-generated: why? It seems voicey, pacey, individualistic ... and contains new-to-the-world info. And it's good. None of these being qualities I associate with AI writing.

The giveaway is almost always an over-dependence on "Not 'x' but 'y'" structure. Even when the author changes the wording so that the phrase doesn't read exactly like that, they tend to leave the structure intact, and the bots really like to lead with the inverse of what the author wants to say to create contrast.

A human author might have used this technique once to really emphasize a strong point, but today's LLMs use it so often that it loses its emphasis, and instead becomes a distinct stylistic fingerprint.

It's not good. If it were good, it wouldn't juxtapose random uncited numbers together that don't compute:

> Crop yields increase 3-5×

> Farmers go from $600/acre to $14,000/acre revenue

5×$600 is $3000. Where did the extra 4.7x come from? The new-to-the-world info looks more like "making stuff up on the fly".

Lack of sources. Questionable numbers and math. Tone. Emoji. In short: everything.

> people saying this is AI-generated: why?

Because they themselves have nothing interesting to say