Bill is your concern that readers might put your text through an 'AI detection' tool and deem it machine made, or that a human might read it and deem it so?

Both?

If more the latter, might not soliciting feedback from people be a more fruitful approach?

If the former, I worry Claude would be so poisoned with bias you may risk giving a genAI stink to the text where it otherwise may have none.

Yeah – crowds blame humans for using what the #siliconiac had stolen.

@slackline

I wonder if something like "shoe on head" video chat authentication will also come back out of necessity.

+1 from me on all the tells other people are mentioning. The blandness and inability to put a point on it usually tips me off.

It’s not just boring–it’s also trite

In general anything AI does it does because it picks up patterns from human text. So there's no One feature that makes it AI, more like a cluster of features that comes across as a tone or a style. It's hard to describe. I think the best way to put it is the use of writing devices for the sake of using them, rather than to convey information or illustrate a point. This can also give the text an exaggerated, almost zealous tone.

When it comes to em dashes, "it's not x it's y", etc, it's more about how it sits within the text rather than simply its presence. If it's being used sparingly to make a point, probably human. If it comes across as weird and forced and overdone, probably AI.

in literature, legibility isn't a necessity. neither is coherence. and neither is a complete match between form and content. this is what made James Joyce, Pynchon, Heamingway great (to name the ones that most people from different countries might have come across, because we surely have our own examples in local literature)

genAI algorithms has no concept of form versus content. and thus can not create a divergence between the two