Yeah that's the point. Spammers have an infinite desire to make more spam, so statistically most LLM writing is garbage.

Readers are making this connection from their own experience. All these tells just associate it with garbage.

In the before times, sending a formal document full of typos and errors would show you didn't bother to proofread, now having a doc full of lazy "LLMisms" also looks like you were too lazy to proofread.

Alternative uses for reading:

1. Facts and processes. I just want to know something. I do not care if some Nerds for Nginx article is AI written.

2. Opinions and experiences. I want to know a human is writing because emotionally engaging with an AI isn’t building a stronger society - it’s increasing isolation.

3. In another front, I feel like the value of an AI story cannot be greater than the value of the inputs. If you wrote a two paragraph prompt and an LLM produced a 10 page story, the truth is, it’s only worth two paragraphs. That’s just a feeling, but as of now I don’t think the LLMs have any additional life experiences to draw on to increase the value of their storytelling. (I understand this is debatable, but still- what they offer is available to everyone for now; it is a baseline.)

  > You're making the erroneous assumption that the person posting the article was a mouthbreathing spammer

Yes, that's the risk of using an LLM to "clean up" your writing. It's human nature to think you're unique and everyone else should somehow instinctively realize your output is unlike all the LLM spam garbage and worth their time but that doesn't work in practice.

It's unreasonable to expect other people to suppress their intuitive heuristics formed from the bait and switch of being subjected to endless LLM spam every day and blame them for not giving you a fair chance.