> But you can tell it to use different styles. To be formal or in-formal, to insert colloquialisms or to remove.

And when you get it right, the result doesn't get called AI generated.

> People are depending on their own 'gut-sense' a lot, and not realizing they are really not correct.

TFA is very obvious about it.

A human who writes like this should be ashamed to do so, and should endeavour to understand why the writing comes across as "generic LLM"-like and fix it.

We have reached a point where people can end up training their writing on generic LLM output. This is a bad thing, because it's bad output.

Even beyond any clues from writing style, the general presentation is bad. It presents far too many facts and figures without giving anyone a good reason to care about most of them. And then it ends with a section on a separate topic (how to choose a lab, rather than how they're distributed across the world).

Most importantly, though, the submission is presented with a different title that implies a different purpose to the article that is not elaborated in the article. I would have expected personal insight a) on why people should care about the FCC's action (there is no mention of that action at all); b) on what the process was like of collecting this data. And I would have expected, you know, mapping of the lab locations rather than bar charts giving geographic breakdowns.