I had a similar reaction to OP for a different post a few weeks back - I think some analysis on the health economy. Initially as I was reading I thought - "Wow, I've never read a financial article written so clearly". Everything in layman's terms. But as I continued to read, I began to notice the LLM-isms. Oversimplified concepts, "the honest truth" "like X for Y", etc.

Maybe the common factor here is not having deep/sufficient knowledge on the topic being discussed? For the article I mentioned, I feel like I was less focused on the strength of the writing and more on just understanding the content.

LLMs are very capable at simplifying concepts and meeting the reader at their level. Personally, I subscribe to the philosophy of - "if you couldn't be bothered to write it, I shouldn't bother to read it".

I think you're just hallucinating because this does not come across as an AI article

It's really unfortunate that we call well-structured writing 'LLM-isms' now.

I don’t see the usual tells in this essay

People care, when they can tell.

Popular content is popular because it is above the threshold for average detection.

In a better world, platforms would empower defenders, by granting skilled human noticers flagging priority, and by adopting basic classifiers like Pangram.

Unfortunately, mainstream platforms have thus far not demonstrated strong interest in banning AI slop. This site in particular has actually taken moderation actions to unflag AI slop, in certain occasions...

It is certainly very obvious a lot of the time. I wonder if we revisited the automated slop detection problem we’d be more successful now… it feels like there are a lot more tells and models have become more idiosyncratic.