Regarding the AI-perspective of the emdash being commiserated here...

As a few have pointed out, many writers have been using it usefully since long before the blight.

The current state of revolt is probably a phase though, as models will learn to account and adjust for the litany of literary crimes they've been committing. In some ways we are fortunate to have such easy signals to work with while, already, false positives are becoming almost as common as actual positives, indicating it might not be long before we just can't tell anymore. Which would suck, but then we'd have to adjust the nature of our complaints to something more profound, something more... insidious, something.... Maybe Woodrow Wilson? [0]

It's not only the emdash that threatens the quality of our dialog and linguistic welfare — it's many principles, such as the the Rebuttle>Reframe>Prescribe structure of this very sentence. Once is a lot, but multiple instances of this structure in a single comment would be worse than swallowing a double hyphen sideways.

The LLM is methodical, deliberate, unhurried — in a way that rewards the vigilance, attention and patience required to spot compulsions, such as the Rule-of-Three seen here.

It's important to catch and worth noting each instance of filler-transition that adds little information while working toward word-counts.

Undoubtedly, if we want to make our world safe for the emdash once again, we certainly should not overlook overused intensifiers posing in places where real work should be.

While such examples can be found in legitimate human-written texts, they can also be found in LLM generated texts, and this Reflexive false balance style sentence is suggesting we just can't always be sure.

Consider a person suffering generic example syndrome, where instead of naturally recalling a situation from actual memory, an example might be synthesized from some statistical category, seeming a bit out of place.

And do not forget sentence length clustering around a mean, which humans have a tendency to naturally avoid.

Frictionless surfaces might also hint the involvement of LLMs, where the final structure may be suspiciously clean of normal human quirks.

Of course, the ultimate question here isn't even being asked, and the emdash is not a registered trademark of LLMs. It's not about whether we should fear using them, or even their value — it's about this Symmetrical closing that despite being written by a human (maybe subhuman) has strong patterns of an LLM.

0. “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

Wilson went a bit farther than might have an LLM. But who knows, the future may bring new rules, perhaps even a rule of 6.