I normally have conversation with opus - And I enjoy it. Maybe I am getting fine-tuned.

I feel like the author wrote like the full plan/ substance himself, and gave to an AI the formatting. It's quite fine for me so actually, as long as the substance make sense/is logical.

I'm always curious what types of books people like when they say they liked reading AI, so what were the last few books you've fully read + enjoyed?

AI has got better.

It read to me to be entirely generated. The lack of details that people would normally mention tripped my spidey-sense. ( Who wouldn't name-check the restaurant in the opening paragraph? )

A double check, the author appearing to take up blogging in 2023, mostly about data science, with all the tell-tale signs of generated posts.

Oops… gotta say that I agree with the general message of the article, though.

How does Pangram detect this? How do we know this is any more reliable than just asking any HN user to judge a text for AI signs, i.e. how is this more authoritative than the comments you're responding to?

Even though they were fully booked from the phone bookings regardless

This particular article has the tell tale opus 4.8 smell of these short sentences. I think its mainly opus 4.8

Articles of this type suggest a fun game: "LLM or Marketroid?" Because either one could have written it, and both are capable of about equivalent levels of original thought. (whoops did i just say that out loud)

The tiny sentence fragments are too much for me. They trip up the flow of the text.

Also the "not this, but that" structure is overused here.

When did "X is built one marble at a time" become popular? Maybe search analytics can tell us.

This one almost feels like the AI got stuck in a perseverating loop of "He <blank> the <blank>." <repeat>

This is followed up by a sprinkling of every possible punctuative shakeup: bold, em-dash, semicolon, colon, quote, etc.

It was the content. So many very specific claims with no source, just stuff being made up. I don't know who Brené Brown is, perhaps she specifically researches trust, but how curious that her daughter can raise a problem with trust, specifically cite two named behaviours that build trust, and then Brown just happens to have a database of trust-building behaviours to hand, that she hasn't even analysed, ready to output a teachable moment.

It is the em dashes and the excessive wordiness as well as a lot of "not this, but that".

Eg:

"Not dramatically. Just quietly. " -- This is filler words. Whether it's dramatic or quiet has no relevance to the point they're making.

It also loves threes: "Well-modelled, properly sourced, beautifully visualised to requirements" - again, all irrelevant. The point they're making is that it's measuring the wrong thing, not that "beautifully visual things can be incorrect".

"There’s a piece of this conversation that most leaders miss, and it’s the part I care about most" - this hook of "most people miss" it is very common in AI writing.

Well, sometimes there's flat-out nonsense that seems to have been written purely to back into the author's thesis:

    You cannot design an algorithm that eavesdrops on dinner conversation and dispatches someone to buy a street hot dog, because the person on the receiving end would immediately sense the machinery of it.

But usually there's also:

- Word count hovering between four and five thousand words - Dramatic/narrative section titles - "No X, no Y. Just Z"

Last but certainly not least, there's the Lists of Exactly Three Things. I counted literally thirty in this piece. Examples:

    - "...the ritual of a human voice, the small exchange about an anniversary or a first date, the warmth of being recognised."
    - "Who was celebrating a birthday? Who was on a first date? What had a regular not finished on their plate six months ago?"
    - "You can’t purchase it, automate it, or accelerate it with a clever marketing campaign."
    - "...forgive outages, laugh off a late delivery, stay through a price increase."
    - "...the food arrives hot, the bill is accurate, the room is clean."
    - "You notice, you adjust, you respond."

I personally thought to myself "written by AI" after this part:

... the restaurant was fully booked. No warmth. No conversation. Just a long wait and a closed door. In trying to humanise the process, he’d made it worse.

I'm sure some people write this way, but most don't. And AI writes this way.

It's very clearly written by AI, which means that the thoughts expressed are not novel and the story told cannot be trusted. How can you expect people to spend time digesting the content if the author did not spend time writing it? It would be more honest to show the prompt, or the unpolished draft.