How is that evidence that the site was AI written?

twoodfin 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The evidence is that the article’s writing is terrible. It repeats the same rhetorical devices over and over, dressing up a series of facts in false profundity, because there’s no actual authorial insight here. It’s just “write a well-researched article that demonstrates how ahead of its time the Ada language was” + matmul.

▲

boxed 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Humans are not gods of writing that will please all audiences and make no mistakes.

	▲	twoodfin 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Neither of those standards are what I’m talking about. Obviously this article was highly pleasing to the hn audience as it’s currently sitting at #1. It’s still garbage, because it doesn’t have any interesting ideas behind it. Certainly not commensurate with its length.

▲

quietbritishjim 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the quoted word salad is plenty of evidence.

▲

zozbot234 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The combination of emdashes and inane non-sequiturs in "These are not X. They're Y" style is pretty damning.