These are just some of the good examples I found.

My hunch that this is substantially LLM-generated is based on more than that.

In my head it's like a Bayesian classifier, you look at all the sentences and judge whether each is more or less likely to be LLM vs human generated. Then you add prior information like that the author did the research using Claude - which increases the likelihood that they also use Claude for writing.

Maybe your detector just isn't so sensitive (yet) or maybe I'm wrong but I have pretty high confidence at least 10% of sentences were LLM-generated.

Yes, the stylistic patterns exist in human speech but RLHF has increased their frequency. Also, LLM writing has a certain monotonicity that human writing often lacks. Which is not surprising: the machine generates more or less the most likely text in an algorithmic manner. Humans don't. They wrote a few sentences, then get a coffee, sleep, write a few more. That creates more variety than an LLM can.

Fun exercise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AI_or_not_quiz

I am reminded of the Simpsons episode in which Principal Skinner tries to pass off the hamburgers from a near-by fast food restaurant for an old family recipe, 'steamed hams,' and his guest's probing into the kitchen mishaps is met with increasingly incredible explanations.

I’m so glad the witch hunt has moved on to phrasing so I get less grief for my em dashes.

See also: “I'm Kenyan. I Don't Write Like ChatGPT. ChatGPT Writes Like Me” by Marcus Olang', https://marcusolang.substack.com/p/im-kenyan-i-dont-write-li...

For what it’s worth, Pangram reports that Marcus’ article is 100% LLM-written: https://www.pangram.com/history/640288b9-e16b-4f76-a730-8000...

I hate that I can’t write em dashes freely anymore without people accusing the writing of being AI generated.

Even though they are perfect for usage in writing down thoughts and notes.

No, it’s pretty obviously AI written. Not sure why you’re running so much interference for them…are you affiliated with this company?

[dead]

I doubt you write like that. Where can I find your writing other than your comments which IMO don't read like the blog post?

It's not just terseness, it's the rhythm and "it's not x, it's y".

In fact, the latter is the opposite of terseness. LLMs love to tell you what things are not way more than people do.

See https://www.blakestockton.com/dont-write-like-ai-1-101-negat...

(The irony that I started with "it's not just" isn't lost on me)

Real talk. You're not just making a good point -- you're questioning the dominant paradigm

I'm sure some human writers would write:

> The specification forces this question on every path through the IMU mode-switching code. A reviewer examining BADEND would see correct, complete cleanup for every resource BADEND was designed to handle.

> The specification approaches from the other direction: starting from LGYRO and asking whether any paths fail to clear it.

> *Tests verify the code as written; a behavioural specification asks what the code is for.*

However this is a blog post about using Claude for XYZ, from an AI company whose tagline is

"AI-assisted engineering that unlocks your organization's potential"

Do you really think they spent the time required to actually write a good article by hand? My guess is that they are unlocking their own organizations potential by having Claude writes the posts.

The WikiEDU project has some thoughts on this. They found Pangram good enough to detect LLM usage while teaching editors to make their first Wikipedia edits, at least enough to intervene and nudge the student. They didn’t use it punatively or expect authoritative results however. https://wikiedu.org/blog/2026/01/29/generative-ai-and-wikipe...

They found that Pangram suffers from false positives in non-prose contexts like bibliographies, outlines, formatting, etc. The article does not touch on Pangram’s false negatives.

I personally think it’s an intractable problem, but I do feel pangram gives some useful signal, albeit not reliably.

We wouldn't need any personal AI detection algorithm flags if the authors simply stated up front that their content is AI generated.

But they won't do that, because deep down they feel shameful about it (as they should).

> This got me thinking: what if LLMs are used to do the opposite? To condense a long prompt into a short article? That takes more work but might make the outcome more enjoyable as it contains more information.

You're fighting an uphill battle against the inherent tendency to produce more and longer text. There's also the regression to the mean problem, so you get less information (and more generic) even though the text is shorter.

Basically, it doesn't work

> Yes. These HN guidlines already basically cover it:

>> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

>> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

They don't. people. tangential.

If the content was interesting, the author would've written about it himself.

By asking AI to write the article for you, you're asserting that the subject matter is not interesting enough to be worth your time to write, so why would it be worth my time to read?

> Read his other articles

Sure, let me have a look.

He wrote 8 similarly lengthy blog posts in just 2 months: https://www.juxt.pro/blog/from-specification-to-stress-test/ https://www.juxt.pro/blog/three-paradoxes/ https://www.juxt.pro/blog/what-outlasts-the-code/ https://www.juxt.pro/blog/composition-at-a-distance/ https://www.juxt.pro/blog/new-vocabulary-for-an-old-problem/ https://www.juxt.pro/blog/softwares-second-heroic-age/ https://www.juxt.pro/blog/capability-hyperinflation/

They contain a lot of classic LLMisms:

"Implementation is the shrinking currency. Not because it’s worthless, but because supply is exploding."

His past writing was much, much less wordy: https://henrygarner.com/

This is on the front page now https://rajnandan.com/posts/taste-in-the-age-of-ai-and-llms/

So LLMs write effectively and when people do you accuse them of using an LLM?