I did a quick skim and the usage of phrases like "snappy stylist" and "speed-and-value monster" were what instantly stuck out to me as AI. I decided I probably didn't need to actually read the article after that.

▲

walrus01 2 hours ago | parent [-]

This is the real unlock of the speed and value monster.

I am trying to figure out how many LLM converged on a writing style that resembles a LinkedIn MBA true believer. Maybe because there was just such a sheer mass of corporate-speak drone writing out there in the wild in the training data set?

But more seriously, is there a firefox extension that 'skims' the text body content of a page and puts some kind of "this was probably written by AI" meter, gauge, number or indicator in the top menu bar adjacent to the URL bar? It could even be color coded in various shades from green, yellow, orange, red. If there isn't, it sure seems like something that would be good to have.

▲

hattmall an hour ago | parent [-]

It's kinda logical. Most people, individually, have a somewhat unique writing style. So if there's one set of writing that's very formulaic and consistent and you build an averaging machine it's going to converge on that formulaic style because everyone else's writing style is going to be much closer to n=1.

	▲	somenameforme 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I'd expect that most corporate speak made it past their data curation, while normal people speaking normally was probably scrutinized a bit more heavily. The PC stuff is also probably quite terrified of a lot of adjectives. For instance I just used normal as an adjective, and that can be a hyper-loaded term if somebody's obsessed with trying to interpret things in the most absurdly bad faith way imaginable. By contrast corporate speak tends to have obnoxious lingo, but lingo that can't really be spun too much. Even for one of those guys, mental gymnasticing 'snappy' into being a secret dog whistle's going to be pretty hard.