Certainly AI editorialised. I wonder if this is because English isn’t their first language, and they are confidence compensating. I’ve worked with a lot of folks also from Philippines and the Tagalog/English mix leads to some confidence challenges sometimes.
You might be surprised…or you might not. I’ve found it’s a good barometer for whether you actually don’t like AI writing or you just don’t like bad AI writing.
At this point, I assume most LinkedIn users use AI to assist in generating posts anyway, so the distinction kinda becomes pointless. Nobody likes reading AI generated posts, and nobody ever really liked reading LinkedIn posts either.
I read the whole thing, but I was questioning whether this was heavily AI-assisted or just very linkedin-coded. For me the biggest AI indicators were "From “arcane” to professional", "The results: From the playmat to the professional world" and your "actually owning a language" example. I can't imagine anyone writing those sentences, even long-time linkedin users.
I really think that the HN guidelines need updating, so that we're directed to consider those comments the same way we do accusations of astroturfing:
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
It "degrades discussion" in exactly the same fashion.
For sure an AI write up
Certainly AI editorialised. I wonder if this is because English isn’t their first language, and they are confidence compensating. I’ve worked with a lot of folks also from Philippines and the Tagalog/English mix leads to some confidence challenges sometimes.
Recommend everyone take this test: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/03/09/business/ai-w...
You might be surprised…or you might not. I’ve found it’s a good barometer for whether you actually don’t like AI writing or you just don’t like bad AI writing.
8 replies →
Two human editors. I'm one of them and I absolutely do not use AI tools when I edit.
If you're going off the use of emdashes and endashes, I've been using them for over 25 years.
You couldnt tell the difference between a LinkedIn writer and a up and AI, they are both comparably generic.
At this point, I assume most LinkedIn users use AI to assist in generating posts anyway, so the distinction kinda becomes pointless. Nobody likes reading AI generated posts, and nobody ever really liked reading LinkedIn posts either.
Suppose you saw the em dash in the first line and drew that conclusion
No. But I admit I stopped after these:
> actually “owning” a language
> I found my answer in the one thing I had loved for over a decade
> Following is a detailed, step-by-step breakdown of how I did just that
I read the whole thing, but I was questioning whether this was heavily AI-assisted or just very linkedin-coded. For me the biggest AI indicators were "From “arcane” to professional", "The results: From the playmat to the professional world" and your "actually owning a language" example. I can't imagine anyone writing those sentences, even long-time linkedin users.
I love this new future where every post has comments about whether AI was involved or not!
I really think that the HN guidelines need updating, so that we're directed to consider those comments the same way we do accusations of astroturfing:
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
It "degrades discussion" in exactly the same fashion.
Except "usually mistaken" doesn't apply here, since it's often true.
1 reply →
That's just in the short term. After a few years people will be complaining this posts sounds like it was written by meat.
You mean the meat communicates?
1 reply →