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.
Where the heck did LLMs (Claude in particular) pick up the "load-bearing" tic I wonder? I'm over a half century old and read a lot, and I don't think I've ever seen load-bearing used so much before I noticed Claude using it all the time a few months back.
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.
Where the heck did LLMs (Claude in particular) pick up the "load-bearing" tic I wonder? I'm over a half century old and read a lot, and I don't think I've ever seen load-bearing used so much before I noticed Claude using it all the time a few months back.
The thought occurs that some day we'll be nostalgic for the quaint LLM speak of yore.
I don't really think there's a tangential detail that is related to the message. Which one are you referring to?
Also, the upbeat and persuasive style ... is my style kek, is it me being too pushy or?
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?