This reads less like LLM output than it does someone just transcribing their brief notes as they did their research. Lot of missing subject nouns, which is not something I'd expect to see from AI output.

▲ bonsai_spool 5 days ago | parent [-]

You can ask an LLM to write in a different voice—they don't all sound exactly the same, though this one is no different than other examples.

When I use an LLM, it tries to sound like me but there are still tendencies it falls back on, especially when the context window begins to expand.

The 'missing subject nouns' is probably the LLM's way of sounding like an authoritative source in a technical field since many programmers like to write that way.

▲ bonsai_spool 5 days ago | parent [-]

Here's a great example of something written by a human that otherwise seems to have a similar structure to the OP:

https://lalitm.com/post/building-syntaqlite-ai/

Flags for LLM vs human drafting:

- Subtitles have the rhetoric turned to 11 with LLMs. (Note: Who has ever had multiple sentences as a blog post heading? It's bizarre) :

  - LLM "The Demo Works. Production Does Not."

  - Human "AI is why this project exist, and why it's as complete as it is"

- Sources for claims that call for evidence

  - LLM "Six months ago, a practitioner could name a preferred OCR engine with confidence. Based on what I read, that confidence is gone." - *What was read?*

  - Human "AI coding tools and playing slot machines"[ref]

- Variable paragraph lengths, where things that need more explanation have longer paragraphs (and vice versa)

  - LLM *Scroll through—each thing is about the same length*

----

There are lots of tells like this. This is a moment to get good at detecting LLM text in case it's surreptitiously used to your detriment.

	▲	chelm 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Ok, let's not discuss the content but the format. > Who has ever had multiple sentences? Many? https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/two-sentences-in-a-t... > Sources for claims that call for evidence Absolutely. You got the joke, or? This was the main point of the full article. No primary sources. Only unverified aggregates. Strong contrast to what I did normally once per month. > Variable paragraph lengths I tried to compare it to the URL you posted. It's quite similar. I would have rather have said. Shorter sentences. Shorter Paragraphs. But let's not fight on this ;)
	▲	bonsai_spool 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'll amend my statement; I think the comparison text was written by an LLM with human editing. As I read it more, there are also some LLM-isms there.