Comment by newer_vienna
6 hours ago
Article is full of AI tells. "The two men shared surface-level similarities.", "Not X but Y", and em-dashes everywhere. I wish that people would write articles themselves, with their own style, if they expect people to read it.
I doubt it. It's the house magazine of a a Christian sect (the Bruderhof Anabaptists), and it also needs a firmer editor. There were sections that stuck out to me as I read it where I was like "Claude would have caught that".
I wish people would stop keying in on em-dashes. They might be a tell on message boards and Twitter, but lots of writers use them heavily and have for decades.
By itself it's not a tell but combined with all else it's hard to pass by. Author's other article from 2025 has less than half the dashes and it's the same length
How would the rise of dash usage in LLMs have arised if a significant portion of non-LLM writers weren't inclined to take them up and make them more common? The only explanation I see is that they are common in training materials we don't as commonly consume as website visitors.
1 reply →
So we're actually witnessing in real time that he was slowly learning where to use emdashes? That's sort of hilarious.
to your point, a book i had as a kid in chicago suburbia has a section on hyphens and dashes
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/book/ed18/part2/ch06/to...
It’s not just emdashes it’s emdashes coupled with everything else that’s a tell. Only marketing has been using “it’s not X, it’s Y” and not good non/fiction writing. People should be keying in to help others discern generative text, regardless of however annoying you find it.
The identifying and complaining of LLM generated writing is just desserts IMO of all the LLM evangelism going on.
Just so I'm clear, I'm saying I don't think the writing in this is coherent enough to be LLM product. It kind of meanders and there are some rough paragraphs.
(That's not a bad thing! I'm not saying it wasn't worth reading. Just that it had rough edges that in my experience LLMs polish off.)
3 replies →
> Only marketing has been using “it’s not X, it’s Y”
i'm not even remotely convinced that's true.
1 reply →
i would expect emdashes in a professionally published website.
Same. I believe Word and most other word processors and desktop publishing applications convert standard keyboard-typed hyphens to em- or en-dashes automatically, and have for decades.
particularly academic writing... said having worked as an editor at an academic journal long before ChatGPT was a thing, and having corrected many hyphens to m-dashes.
Did you go to law school?
If only there was a way to find out the truth. But who has the appetite for that these days? Or the appetite for the effort required?
The irony of this comment can even be found in the post itself:
> ...the magazine’s fortunes soared by exploiting the public’s appetite for outrage. Articles frequently relied on exaggerated – and at times outright false – stories... Accuracy and integrity were secondary to the relentless churn of opinions. The formula worked.
You people should work out why you need to know if something was AI written or not. If there's really no way to know the truth, then the truth can't have any impact on you, so it doesn't matter. Why then do you care?
I've heard people say they want a human connection with the author but there was never one anyway. It's 1-way (parasocial), repeatedly edited (not natural human thought), formulaic (effectively AI writing rules implemented by a human), sometimes written by multiple separate people, and you have no other interactions with the same individual(s) so you can't build any kind of relationship or coherent understanding of them.
Consider me. You've probably never interacted with me before and probably never will again. I might be two separate people. I might be an AI. This might be a copy-paste of something I already wrote to 10 other people. Will knowing any of that stuff make a difference to you?
[dead]
84% likely human on zerogpt, but you could have done that yourself.
ZeroGPT is a gimmick. Just last month it flagged my paper as AI and I wrote the thing myself. How is it coming up with that 84%? Seems like snakeoil to me. Even the academic department at my Uni agreed and admitted they cannot use any of these AI checkers in actual academic hearings. They are akin to dowsing rods.
Hallucinated references are a 100% tell.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something about the font, these seem to be the shorter en-dashes, not the em-dashes that are otherwise rare to see.
Also, there is the question of why? This is a quarterly publication with only a few articles, not a blog spamming 20,000 a day. The author himself is a rabbi and professor at St. John's, who is heavily published but not exactly spamming the world with shit. He's written two full-length books, one novel and one non-fiction, both of them published before LLMs were anywhere near good enough to produce convincing long-form prose. All of his material I could find is published through real publications with editorial boards, not self-published. He doesn't exactly fit the profile of the ambitious hustler trying to make a name for himself to game SEO rankings or boost his karma on web outlets with up-voting mechanisms.