Huh? This is the least LLM writing style I've encountered. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

It's not an extraordinary claim, it's a mundane and plausible one. This is exactly what you get when you ask an LLM to write in a "engaging conversational" style, and skip any editing after the fact. You could never prove it but there are a LOT of tells.

"The key insight" - llms love key insights! "self-contained corruption-free" - they also love over-hypenating, as much as they love em-dashing. Both abundant here. "X like it's 2005" and also "Y like it's 2009" - what a cool casual turn of phrase, so natural! The architecture diagram is definitely unedited AI, Claude always messes up the border alignment on ascii boxes

I wouldn't mind except the end result is imprecise and sloppy, as pointed out by the GP comment. And the tone is so predictable/boring at this point, I'd MUCH rather read poorly written human output with some actual personality.

ai detectors are never totally accurate but this one is quite good and it suggests something like 80% of this article is llm generated. honestly idk how you didn't get that just by reading it tho, maybe you haven't been exposed to much modern llm-generated content?

https://www.pangram.com/history/5cec2f02-6fd6-4c97-8e71-d509...