Good lord, the very topic of the article is how sad it is that people are now pointing to human writing tropes and saying "must be AI", because AI over-uses those tropes. Maybe AI was used, maybe it wasn't. But we could have a modicum of charity.

I can't tell you how many times I've written "it's not X, it's Y", or "it's like X, but Y", or used em dashes over the years before AI. Probably thousands.

Pangram thinks it's a mix, with around 40% of the text being AI. This was sort of my feeling about it even before running it through a checker, that a human wrote or rewrote some segments but others do feel distinctly high in perplexity and were potentially written by AI.

https://www.pangram.com/history/c150e3e0-7173-4cbb-9b38-41dc...

That being said, does it really matter? It comes off as bad writing. The mixed metaphors are hard to follow and detract from the point.

it wouldnt be an HN thread without an immediate accusation of ai usage.

(ai or not, hn is supposed to be about curiosity and engaging conversation. reading a hundred of the exact same comment every day is not curiosity-piquing, nor does it facilitate good conversation)

I mean, the whole article is the author bemoaning that LLMs have usurped his writing style.