Evaluating the content on its merit I'd question whether the author has seen a bicycle before. Yes, in the final iteration with Opus it added a chain, but it's missing a triangle which clearly shows a lack of understanding of mechanical relationships.

Ignoring the wording, em-dashes, etc. I'd assume an LLM not only wrote the article but also judged the pictures. That or the author has a much more relaxed opinion on what a pelican on a bicycle should actually look like. I don't think I would call Sonnet's arms and handlebars improved, nor would I call Haiku's legs and feet "proper." And if you overlay GPT-5 Medium's two photos the shapes proportions are nearly identical.

That phrase template isn’t just overdone—it's something some text models are obsessed with. The em-dashes, the contrastive language—these are signs of LLMs being asked to summarize or expand a compelling blog post.

If you give it credit for the chain, you need to also notice that that bike has a fixed front wheel. It literally can not be turned.