But meeting in the middle only works if you honestly believe the middle is a valuable place to be. I don't want to dissect your writing too much, but let's look at one example.

> The issue with most of these articles is that they seem to demonize the technology, and systematically use demeaning language about all of its facets.

This is very confident, strident language. You clearly believe that there is a faction of people demonizing technology, akin to luddites, who are not worthy of being taken seriously.

> This one raises a lot of important points about LLMs, but...

So here you go for the rhetorical device of weighing the opposing view. Except, you don't weight it at all. You are not at all specific about what those points are. It's just a way to signal that you're being thoughtful without having to actually engage with the opposing viewpoint.

> I do think that safety is important... But I think it's better not to be a luddite.

Again, the rhetoric of moderation but not at all moderate in content.

It was a clear mistake to think that this was LLM writing. But I suspect the reason I made this mistake is that AI writing influences people to mimic surface level aspects of its style. AI writing tends to actually do the "You might say A is true, but B has some valid points, however A is ultimately correct." Your writing seems like that if you aren't reading it closely, but underneath that is a very human self-assuredness with a thin veneer of charitability.