Here's what gave it away for me

> The remaining difference is noise, not a fundamental language gap. The real Rust advantage isn't raw speed -- it's pipeline ownership.

The author is from Turkey (where I’m also originally from).

Believe it or not, when you write a blog post in a different language, it really helps to use an LLM, even just to fix your grammar mistakes etc.

I assume that’s most likely what happened here too.

So much "is real". It is ok to check your grammar, but this is slopabetes inducing.

I didn't notice any signs of AI writing until seeing this comment and re-reading (though I did notice it on the second pass).

That said, I think this article demonstrates that focusing on whether or not an article used AI might be focusing on the wrong “problem.” I appreciate being sensitive to the "smell" (the number of low-effort, AI posts flying around these days has made me sensitive too), but personally, I found this article both (1) easy to read and (2) insightful. I think the number of AI-written content lacking (2) is the problem.

I also seem to be developing an immune response to several slopisms. But the actual content is useful for outlining tradeoffs if you’re needing to make your Python code go faster.

If we only applied the same reflex to software, even when 100% human programmed.

“The numbers are real.” But the voice is not.

I got the same sense, but nowadays I can't be sure whether a text is AI or the writer's style has absorbed LLM tropes.

I don't think it should be conflated with auto generated AI slop. I see a lot of snippets which were clearly manually written. I'm assuming the author used AI in a supervised manner, to smooth out the writing process and improve coherency.