| ▲ | userbinator 5 hours ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | siffin 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Let me get this right. The accusation that an article was written by AI negates the science of toxic chemical leeching? |
| |
| ▲ | userbinator 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Most "environmental science" these days is p-hacked propaganda for pushing an agenda anyway, so it's not surprising. | |
| ▲ | hrimfaxi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They didn't say negates they said it calls it into question. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | gruez 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >Pure AI slop. Because the em-dashes? In a professionally typeset article, the presence of em-dashes isn't really suspicious because that's how they're supposed to be used. AI learned to use em-dashes somehow, it's not like they invented the concept. |
| |
| ▲ | smallerize 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Guardian printed the same quote without em-dashes, and with spaces around hyphens instead. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/18/hazardous... And in the next paragraph of the Arnika article, they have em-dashes surrounded by spaces, in contrast to the quotation which doesn't leave any space around them. It's not clear where the style choices were made in the quote. | |
| ▲ | userbinator 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "It's not just X, it's Y" is what caught my attention first. Then I noticed the em-dashes. |
|
