Which, given the section below from the article, ends up kind of ironic:

> There is a deeper cost still, and it concerns the thing LLMs do most impressively: writing. [...] Outsource the writing and you have not accelerated the thinking; you have skipped it.

I think the author might not know what "impressive writing" or even "good writing" is, which would explain both how they could put that part into the article, and how they seemingly believed this post was good and valuable enough to be posted publicly.

I wanted you to be wrong, and to be able to make this an example of us over-reacting to certain trigger words created by AI, but unfortunately I just scanned the first couple paragraphs with pangram and it reported 100% AI, so you're probably correct.

I get a funny feeling in my stomach over the idea that common and effective means of communication (i.e. it's not X it's Y) have become faux pas to use because of AI. I think it's something about these phrases being taken away from us more-so than the AI inventing them.

This comment was perhaps written by an LLM that has learned it can karma farm by pointing out all of the articles that have LLM usage while everyone still thinks that is a novel contribution.

You're absolutely right—it's been a load-bearing LLM tell for a while now.

I think that in the end it does not matter, anymore. It is inevitable that most of the text now and in the future is at least reviewed by LLM.

We should criticize whether text is poorly written, inaccurate, wastes words to get to the point and anything like. Saying that it is "written by LLM" just bypasses this and is not useful and misses the point. AI written text can be really good if used correctly. Criticize the content, don't speculate how it was written. If AI helps us to write better text, that is great. But often it is not good.

It is better blame the author for the bad text, so they get consequences and might do better next time, if the text is bad.

By the way, I think this piece of text was quite good.

Is "quietly" an LLM tell? It was always certainly a human writer trope commonly seen in journalism. Though I guess it does appear five times in the body of the post, and a human writer would probably not go that far with it.

Is it OK to flag articles for being AI-written? I really want to.

Do you have more evidence than this? I'd honestly like to know.

I don't like AI slop like everybody else, but I'm also growing skeptical of the very fast determinations that sth is supposedly made by LLM just because it uses some phrase that Claude also uses. Models are trained on text written by human writers and if human text resembles it, this goes both ways. I have looked at the authors work from the pre-AI era and it reads similar to me.

So please, if you come with such a claim, please include what you base it on, so we all have a chance to determine how much to trust your verdict.

And I read it by asking an LLM to summarise it

This rings more and more true every day: https://samkriss.substack.com/p/if-you-let-ai-do-your-writin...

and silently.