The incessant bullet lists and the conclusion titled "Conclusion" give it away. And above all, the complete lack of "voice". You can tell when a human is speaking and when a sanitised amorphous blob of averageness is speaking.

▲

genidoi 3 days ago | parent [-]

Also three uses of a semi-colon for no reason. Nobody writes like this.

> The log is the truth; the order book is just a real-time projection of this sequence.

> The book is fast; the log is truth.

> Matching engines can crash; the log cannot.

▲

bwfan123 3 days ago | parent [-]

I need to sharpen my BS sensor. At first glance, I struggled to parse the voice in the article. Going back to the article I can now see the obvious gaps. Generally, AI tends to say things that make us go - "what the hell is this" ? for example in the article "The Problem: Ordering Chaos" is a very weird way to phrase it. As a human I struggled to accept it, and I did by stretching the meaning of that phrase to world model where it made sense. ie, our tendency is to give wide leeway to what we read or see and be very "accepting" in that sense. Instead, i think a better option is to reject everything we see or read as the default.

	▲	genidoi 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I didn’t catch it either on the first pass but also felt something was off about the article, as if a human had sanitised most of the AI idiosyncrasies out. Now I have taken note to auto-distrust any “article” that lacks an author name, who is willing to personally own any accusations of the article being AI slop.