>Why? What's LLM generated? How can you tell?

Not the guy you're responding to, but:

1. The high number of (em) dashes is suspect, though it's unclear whether they manually replaced the em dashes or is actually human generated.

2. "One additional failure worth noting: one incident response professional in the HN thread, raised a concern that operates independently of the bot problem" feels out of place for a content marketing piece. HN isn't popular enough to be invoked as a source, and referencing it as "the HN thread" seems even weirder, as if the author prompted "write a piece about how google cloud defense sucks, here are some sources: ..."

3. This passage is also suspect because it follows the chained negation pattern, though it's n=1

>No hardware identifier is transmitted. No attestation is required. No certification layer determines who may participate.

edit:

I also noticed there are 2 other comments that are flagged/dead expressing their reasons.

> actually human generated

Human written, not generated.

> HN isn't popular enough to be invoked as a source

Excuse me, what do you mean there? The author happens to read HN too.

Looks like the moderators are actively deleting comments that call out AI generated articles now. Grim. This comment will probably be deleted too.