Usually, I can easily tell bad AI slop, because it is just that - sloppy - the bullet points, the 'delving' and all that.
But how can you tell this article was also AI-tainted?
On a second skim, I can sort of sense some of it - the bulletpoint-enthusiasm, the idiosyncratic segues (?) that link sections/paragraphs of the text.
But it didn't trigger for me immediately, or cause me concern..?
I'm worrying that soon, I will have to hunt for non-AI essays by them just being worse written/more 'crude' and not as eloquently written as an AI would do :-/
Basically, seeking out "authentic human slop".
It's very clear to me on its face that it's AI, but not "obvious as the sky is blue" others seem to be implying. I would dislike the writing style even if it weren't AI.
For the record, an AI detector that appears to have put work into reliability and that I trust very much from my own testing, Pangram (https://www.pangram.com), says this is 100% AI generated. I've used it plenty before when experimenting with AI-collab writing, both fiction and non-fiction, and it's frustratingly accurate in identifying what is and isn't my contribution. I have since largely given up trying to do AI-collab writing, because no matter how nice the writing looks in the moment, it always reeks when read closely, or on later days.
Your detector did not work well on an AI-collab writing fiction project I did a while ago, tagged it as 100% human even with high confidence for the most part. But to be fair, most detectors weren't significantly better, although this one gave a justification that made sense https://aidetector.com/
Passages like this one suggest that maybe it was an AI rewrite, rather than from scratch:
> I experienced this pattern without understanding it. My Tuesday evening interval sessions, scheduled after long workdays, consistently felt worse than my Saturday morning sessions. I blamed sleep, stress, hydration. Those all matter, but the research suggests the cognitive load itself was a primary culprit.
You really couldn't tell? The overly dramatic transitions all over the place is such an obvious tell:
> Here's the part that surprised me:
Might as well have said "here's the kicker" and used emojis instead of bullets. Maybe you can share your reading sites as you seem rather undrrexposed to not recognize this immediately lol.
Edit: I mean come on man, how can you not tell?! I'm still cringing from this one:
> The incremental cost of actually thinking hard? Almost nothing.
I'm worrying that soon, I will have to hunt for non-AI essays by them just being worse written/more 'crude' and not as eloquently written as an AI would do :-/ Basically, seeking out "authentic human slop".