They've updated the article to state that no LLM was used.
Either they used an LLM or they have no taste and have used LLMs far too much elsewhere.
Author does not dispute that. Yet they claim to not use AI. So your preferred belief is that they are lying, rather than a thing that looks AI written might have been actually written by a human and you are wrong thinking that it can't be true in this case.
> I do write like this sometimes. The short sentences, the reversals, the one-word lines—all of it. It’s just the way it is.
> That says something about my writing. It says nothing about who wrote it.
> So let me be plain about it: Claude was not here. No LLM wrote this—not a sentence of it, nor was it outlined, drafted, reviewed, checked, etc. by one
Either the author is doing this on purpose, or this is some kind of art project. I don’t buy the “just a coincidence” story at all.
I think AI has broken HN. The readership is so head-in-the-sand about AI that they wouldn't recognize 2000 words of Claudeslop if it genuinely slapped them in the face
The alternative explanation (the top commenters actually read it and somehow didn't recognize it's obviously written with AI) is just too bleak and I choose to not believe that.