Idk, it's more like "your writing is cliché and I don't feel like reading it because I've already read something that sounded similar countless times and it wasn't worth the read". The source of the clichés being an LLM. And maybe now humans are writing the same way as LLM output, I still am not going to read all that, sorry. If I see a sea of clichés, I'm going the other way.

I'm also not reading pumpkin spice murder mysteries for a similar reason. I'm also not reading stories where everybody clapped. Actually, I'm already familiar with petrichor, so unless someone has surrounded the word "petrichor" with non-cliché prose, I'm also not going to read all that.

I do think there is a tendency to over-index on one or two particularly straightforward tells, and for any given feature of LLM writing you can find places where people do also use that feature (they had to learn it from somewhere, and in a lot of cases it is good writing practice — for the context in which it is used). But I'm not talking about just that, but also the general tone issue: it's bad writing regardless because it's in most cases just not appropriate for the context it's been written in.

(TBH I think the biggest likelihood for false positives comes from heavy LLM users picking up their tics: it's a natural tendency and I've already seen a few cases where it seems like that has happened).

I went to /show and chose a random project with a GitHub repo. Here's the README:

https://github.com/ucsandman/declick/blob/main/README.md

Please let me know if you

    (a) believe this is human prose

    (b) enjoy reading this prose

    (c) would enjoy reading 100 READMEs like this.

As for invoking petitio principii and questioning other commenters' logical coherence [0], can you politely shove the argumentum ad Latinum up your ass?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49582713