Yeah, it reads more or less exactly like what you'd expect to see if you asked claude to run / investigate the same benchmark, then sat there and read thru its entire chain of reasoning. Beyond making it difficult to trust the veracity of the content, that AI level of verbosity is just a very inefficient way to communicate.

As a developer, writing a 500 line function to express some behavior that could have been expressed in 50 lines is generally a bad look. As a reviewer it makes you wonder whether the author is not competent enough to notice that there's a simpler solution, don't care enough to go back and simplify before publishing, or some combination of both.

It's the same concept with prose. Publishing 50 paragraphs of meandering fluff describing 5 or so paragraphs of actually salient information just shifts the burden of parsing that salient info from the author to all of the readers.

I'm genuinely curious: I read through the article and the narrative felt deliberate and didn't trigger my AI-radar. What made you think it was AI written?

If you don't like AI writing, why are you on hacker news? Most of the articles posted are written by AI.