There are all of the usual signs. Overuse of em-dashes (34 of them), overuse of colons (41 of them), overuse of lists of three items comma-separated, incoherent overusage of bold text, overly terse "x → y" lists.
Some excerpts that are particularly obvious:
> Approve a drug that kills: massive public scandal, congressional hearings, career destruction—the action is visible, attributable, punishable. Delay a drug that would save lives: invisible deaths, no scandal, no attribution—the people who died waiting never become a story.
---
> The mechanics:
> *Interaction implies liability*: Help a homeless person imperfectly → criticized for the imperfection
> *Profit implies guilt*: Sell cheap water in a drought → "profiteer," "monster"
> *Ignorance implies innocence*: Ignore the problem entirely → zero criticism
---
> The Copenhagen Trap doesn't just affect decisions. It affects *who makes decisions*. This is not about individual choices. It is about civilizational selection pressure.
People do not typically use a combined 75 of them in one short essay, and I pointed out several other reasons. Do you know many people IRL who use a colon/em-dash in almost every single paragraph they write, while also just so happening to mimick multiple other LLM writing patterns? Please do not be so childishly reductive. If my comment could be reduced to "it contains em-dashes", then the comment I would've wrote would be "it contains em-dashes".
please don't defend this atrocious llm writing style (and thus, implicitly, the broader issue of people outsourcing writing to llms) by picking random aspects thereof and pointing out that there are human writers who share them
t. someone who uses a lot of em-dashes and doesn't plan to stop
