because it is a propaganda piece

the cheaper it is made, the more effort can be spent elsewhere

> Why would anyone spend the time to read something so long that's been generated by an LLM?

What diference does it make as long as the content is interesting and the tone not grating?

It's possible for a human being to use an LLM but guide it to a well-written piece that's worth consuming.

I think it'd be rather uncharitable to assume this was written by a human:

>The error was not stupidity, corruption, or ideology, but a structural failure of the threat-detection apparatus to model what the asset actually represented.

> The methodology, not just the man

lighten up Francis.

It is LLM with a clever prompt that avoids the most egregious tells (though "load-bearing" appears).

The number of times the article goes on complete tangents, introducing new irrelevant names and the general useless level of detail, all in perfect verbose English points to an LLM. So does the upbeat and persuasive style.

If you write that level of detail, use a historian's style and footnotes. Do not use the synthetic LLM voice that is optimized for rhetoric.

It’s barely readable. The way it flips back and forth “not this but this” instead of just actually saying anything is maddening.

> Kimball was right at the level he was reading it, but wrong about which decision he was reading

What the fuck does this sentence mean?

No worries, I don't mean to disparage your article. At least it avoids some of the most annoying LLMism I have seen, and given its length you must have put some effort into prompting, researching, or editing. Hope you will find your own voice as you write more and more.