I built this tool primarily to identify AI writing in articles and posts but it's proven useful for comments/responses too: https://tropes.fyi/vetter
Not least because a lot of these things are things that novice writers will have had drummed into them. E.g. clearly signposting a conclusion is not uncommon advice.
Not because it isn't hamfisted but because they're not yet good enough that the links advice ("Competent writing doesn't need to tell you it's concluding. The reader can feel it") applies, and it's better than it not being clear to the reader at all. And for more formal writing people will also be told to even more explicitly signpost it with headings.
The post says "AI signals its structural moves because it's following a template, not writing organically. But guess what? So do most human writers. Sometimes far more directly and explicitly than an AI.
To be clear, I don't think the advice is bad given to a sufficiently strong model - e.g. Opus is definitely capable of taking on writing rules with some coaxing (and a review pass), but I could imagine my teachers at school presenting this - stripped of the AI references - to get us to write better.
If anything, I suspect AI writes like this because it gets rewarded in RLHF because it reads like good writing to a lot of people on the surface.
EDIT: Funnily, enough https://tropes.fyi/vetter thinks the above is AI assisted. It absolutely is not. No AI has gone near this comment. That says it all about the trouble with these detectors.
I completely understand - and do not intend to disparage - the use of these tropes. With the vetter and aidr tools I try to focus more on frequency analysis. I've tried to minimise false positives by tuning detection thresholds to match density rather than individual occurrences e.g. "it's not X, it's Y" is fine but 3x in one paragraph and suspicions flare.
But other tropes like lack of specificity and ESPECIALLY AIs tendency to converge to the mean (less risk, less emotion, FALSE vulnerability) are blatantly anti-human imo.
That won't entirely weed out these tropes, but it will massively change the style.
Then add a few specific rules and make it review its writing, instead of expecting it to get it right while writing.
To weed out the tropes is largely a question of enforcing good writing through rules.
A whole lot of the tropes are present because a lot of people write that way. It may have been amplified by RLHF etc., but in that case it's been amplified because people have judged those responses to be better - after all that is what RLHF is.
"Respond within 4-12 hours."
"Do not respond between midnight and 6am EST." (Or CET, whatever makes sense.)
Right now the most obvious traits are the well-known ones that are hard for most LLMs to shake off. Em-dashes, word choices, and the very limited ways in which they structure sentences. Terseness and conciseness is also a tell, which sucks.
They don't do that because spams are their means to achieve something else, specifically to get rid of left wing tech anime porn otakus. The comedy of that is that they've been attempting this by complicating the system, which is like reverse chemotherapy that are nicer to cancer tissues than to the body so that cancer grows faster. I guess they take that as a win as it's a positive action with positive reaction albeit with negative amounts in lieu of negative action with negative reaction with a positive amount.
What's really going to be nice is Twitter transferred to someone else. That will at least stop the stupidity of reverse chemotherapy.