I didn't notice any obvious markers, weird prose, or meandering in this one.

It's clearly written by AI. I find it interesting that some people recognize it immediately and others do not. I don't know what to make of it.

▲

jdlshore 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yep. Very slop-like. I found it grating and had to stop reading, even though I thought the subject was interesting.

▲

fragmede 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No it's not, your detector is broken.

▲

ekelsen 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Seems like yours is?

FWIW, on your own blog, the most recent post also reads as at least AI helped "Navigator Theory". This sentence in particular sticks out: "They affect what the person notices, what they dismiss, what they measure, what they trust, and what they do when reality pushes back."

The one earlier post I read does not ("toxicity of ideas").

And fwiw, online detectors seems to agree with my own judgement here.

	▲	fragmede 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Cunningham's law. :)
	▲	fellowniusmonk 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I am absolutely shocked and freaked out by the number of long lived accounts on this thread that can't detect the fact that this is Ai composed.

▲

eightysixfour 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It absolutely was written with Claude. There are so many Claude-isms in the second half that it was hard for me to digest, despite enjoying the ideas.

▲

fragmede 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Like what?

▲

eightysixfour 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> Hesiod felt it. Plato theorized it. Polybius mechanized it. Sallust prosecuted it (while guilty). Ibn Khaldun put it on a timer. Five civilizations, twenty-one centuries, one diagnosis. The only thing missing was proof.

> For most of history, “too many assholes ruin everything” remained a vibe. A well-documented, five-civilization vibe, but a vibe. Then, in the twentieth century, it became math.

> Sallust, it turns out, was doing game theory in a toga. He just didn’t have the notation.

> That’s not my characterization — it’s the title of the paper. And the researchers defined the term with clinical precision

> That single belief turns out to be a genetic marker. Everything else travels with it.

^^ that one in particular is a VERY strong Claude-ism

> Now, the finding inside the finding

> The study is not a catalog of monsters [...] It’s a measurement [...] with polling-grade precision

> Political violence wasn’t rhetorical; it was a body count

There are a lot in here, I could keep going...

▲

ptmkenny 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The trend that bothers me the most is excessive use of the em dash accompanied by awkward use of semicolons.

> Cooperators who are scattered among cheaters get eaten alive — the lone honest man in a crooked ward is not noble, mathematically speaking; he’s lunch.

There's also the not-quite-right logical link between clauses (I see this a lot in Opus output):

> Parasites are a constant; every era grows them to maximum greed, because that’s what parasites do.

("era grows them" doesn't fit with "that's what parasites do." If the era grows them, the parasites aren't doing their own growth.)

▲

Cpoll 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yeah, I've changed my evaluation. The lists didn't do it for me, because they don't follow the usual rule-of-three, but the "genetic marker ... travels" line seems egregious. And the "not X, but Y".

	▲	eightysixfour 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		More recent Claude models tend to do these new longer lists. I think they've trained it on more varied sentence structures to give it a less monotonous feeling when reading, which worked, but now it has this tendency to go for "punchy" in a way that becomes grating. > A thing. Another thing. More thing. But this thing. Four things, one common thread through time.

▲

toddmorey 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also: load-bearing!

▲

IIsi50MHz 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Every one of those is also an example of how people have written and spoken since before AI existed. But then, I don't 'Claude', so I'm not sensitised by exposure.

	▲	eightysixfour 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, LLMs learned them from somewhere, but when you use it a lot you see that it has very specific, very repetitive writing patterns. This article makes little effort to adapt the writing away from those patterns. It is like a code smell, when you see it, it is obvious.

▲

jbotz 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's rather full of "it's not X, it's Y" and expository paragraph followed by short sentence counter-point, and "read that again".

But no, I don't think it's AI, I think it's just written in a style that happens to be an attractor for LLMs.

▲

wilbo 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I also got strong AI vibes, but I enjoyed the content. I thought it was a interesting summary of topics I've read many times before and even if the content was AI-assisted, does it matter? It seems there was a strong guiding hand in presenting a popular topic in a new way.

▲

ekelsen 9 hours ago | parent [-]

It matters because I don't like the style. I wouldn't like it if a human wrote it. I don't like the style so much that I won't read things written with it.

So maybe she had something interesting to say, but it was not communicated to me because I bounced.

	▲	tanseydavid 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And then you came to tell the rest of us that "you did not read it?" Why do that?

▲

ekelsen 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I would believe she wrote it in this style if you can point to any of her writing pre 2022 that is similar in style.

Does that exist? Genuinely curious.

▲

toddmorey 7 hours ago | parent [-]

“Carlyn Beccia is an award-winning author and illustrator of 13 books.”

	▲	ekelsen 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		All of her books seem to be children's books and many of the 13 are illustrator credits. I found this blog from late 2021: https://medium.com/grimhistorian/coffee-the-sexiest-drink-in... I can only see the beginning of it, but to me the style is obviously different from the thread's linked article.

▲

sasaf5 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]