Dead horse but I find it astonishing that people can still miss AI writing like this.

Don't you find it incredibly grating that every paragraph grinds to a halt while 3 sentence fragments are repeated? Same rhetorical devices. Same tone. Same pointless constructions.

That's not good writing. It's cheap parlour tricks.

The rhythm continues almost as though the writing is in verse—with the effect of hypnotizing the reader so they don't notice nothing is being said at all. The result? Skimmable prose. Digestible reading. Shareable content.

It's not just bad style. It's actually rotting your brain. And if you can't notice that, maybe you weren't reading at all.

I envy you, I can’t even read more than a few paragraphs because this style of adding catchy sentences to make you go „wow“ every few sentences is so annoying.

It always seems to be the case with these LLM blogs that if they're not about AI they are from someone heavily involved in AI, at least for now.

LinkedIn:

> Strategic Partnerships @ Palantir | AI Strategy

Not really incompetence if he hasn't looked at the article

The article is clearly generated text, but it's also just low quality writing.

If the author _were_ aware of specifics, they could have just written the article. A list of bullet points would be better.

It's almost as if they made the article Worse, on Purpose.

I mean, it's a post a week. I think that's pretty plausible. The worst part of this era is just not knowing if I'm reading generated output or genuine human thought.

Its got this ... cadence:

> Same earnings call. Same margin targets. Same quarterly pressure. The sense that you were choosing between competitors was a fiction that VF Corp had no incentive to correct.

> That threat disciplined every material choice, every stitch count, every zipper spec. Once they all report to the same parent, the discipline evaporates. Nobody needs to outbuild anybody. The only pressure left is the one coming from above

> None of this shows up on the shelf. The colors are right. The logos are crisp. The product photography is excellent. You discover what you actually bought three months in, when the stitching pulls apart at every stress point.

Its thing X. Its thing Y. Its thing Z. And now I'm going to tell you about thing Q in a longer sentence.

LLMs really like the "it's not this, it's that" framing. The short punchy lists/sequences also feel off to me.

I think it's also the reuse of the same strategy repeatedly throughout the article. I think most human writers often feel put off if they use the same literary device too much.

At this point, I'm running anything that has the "usual" AI tells through Pangram. Nine times out of ten, the article is 100% AI generated. (This one is 63%.)

Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.

I don't see which of those he violated?

Also from the guidelines: "HN is for conversation between humans." Granted, it's under comment guidelines, but I think it's acting in the spirit of the rule to point out AI output.

Thank you. By the end of 2026, the same snarky "This article was written by LLM" comment is going to be posted on every single article on HN. It's becoming pointless to point out.