[flagged]
And then, as an exercise, ask yourself why you were willing to give this comment leniency?
In fact, can someone link me to a disputed comment that the consensus ends up being it's actually AI? I don't think I've seen one.
It's basically that. I can't explain it (I tried listing the tells in a comment below), but it's not just a list of things you notice. You notice the whole message, the cadence, the phrases that "add nothing". You play with enough models, you see enough generations and you start to "see it".
If you'd like to check for yourself, check that user's comment history. It will become apparent after a few messages. They all have these tells. I don't know how else to explain it, but it's there.
That's certainly a novel and confusing entry in my search history.
It's a bot. Period.
I assign a <5% probability that GP comment was AI written. It's easy to tell, because AI writing has no soul.
If it's actually AI, the pattern becomes extremely obvious reading them back-to-back. If no clear pattern, I'll happily give them the benefit of the doubt at that point. I don't particularly care if someone occasionally cleans up a post with an LLM as long as there is a real person driving it and it's not overused.
The other day on Reddit I saw a post in r/sysadmin that absolutely screamed karma farming AI and it was really depressing seeing a bunch of people defending them as the victim of an anti-AI mob without noticing the entire profile was variations of generic "Does anyone else dislike [Tool X], am I alone? [generic filler] What does everyone else think?" posts.