I realized the same while reading it, but my impression is that the output has been well edited. The typical Claude density has been pulled out into something more human readable, but with many of the Claud-isms still intact.

Personally I find this a productive way to produce documents. Claude makes the first pass and I edit line by line. It’s a good understanding check. If I can’t reword something into my own voice it means I don’t understand it. Then have Claude loop again to fact check the rewrites and repeat until clear (or I disagree with Claude on all it’s remaining points).

That’s the same edit loop I used without LLMs, but I get speed in drafting up front (and fact/number pulling) and the check passes make the edits better.

Pangram says 50% human. That seems to check out, heavily edited yet the LLM aha sentences and cadence are still definitely there, but not overbearing.

I read some Dostoevsky recently and I found my speech to be substantially altered for a while, so it makes sense that LLM writing would have an influence.

Anyone can level a charge of AI writing, but it's getting to the point that you must write sloppy to seem human. and never never write well with clear technical prose. It is getting to be just ridiculous McCarthyism.

When we hyper focus on finding something, we find it all the time.

The world of tiny LLMs is so interesting. It is unlocking novel ways to encode information. Why focus on the style of writing instead of the subject matter?

I don't see it. I sit in a mild state of rage trying to decode llm prose all day, this isn't it.