> because that article is full of Claude-isms

Not sure how I feel about the whole "LLMs learned from human texts, so now the people who helped write human texts are suddenly accused of plagiarizing LLMs" thing yet, but seems backwards so far and like a low quality criticism.

Is it possible for a tool to know if something is AI written with high confidence at all? LLMs can be tuned/instructed to write in an infinite number of styles.

Don't understand how these tools exist.

It has Claude-isms, but it doesn't feel very Claude-written to me, at least not entirely.

What's making it even more difficult to tell now is people who use AI a lot seem to be actively picking up some of its vocab and writing style quirks.

Pangram has a very low false positive rate, but not the best false negative rate: https://www.pangram.com/blog/third-party-pangram-evals

You sound like a flat earther and a moon landing denier combined.