This is impressive, because I had no idea and now I feel angry at having my time wasted! If this type of stuff increases in frequency and I can't easily tell if an article is AI or not, I will stop reading them.
replyUp until "Each guess may look reasonable on its own. But guessing itself has four problems." I read the occasional tell, but not much.
replyBy the end of that paragraph thereafter I started skimming as the rest turned blatantly LLM.
I should have caught the emdash in the first code block in "Who else is calling" though...
> but not the beginning
replyYou didn't stop reading after "The hack itself is on its way out, but the design behind it still matters for your code"? I did.
I meant the beginning didn't show a lot! I don't have exactly zero tolerance because sometimes there's enough signal in the slop, my point was mainly that the signal seems to sharply drop off after a certain point in this article. (I've complimented authors before for managing to keep an article relatively information-dense despite having a lot of clear LLM tells. That shows care, and so I don't object to it.)
replyI have a suspicion that in these cases, either people are purposefully copyediting only the very beginning, or the very beginning has most of the prompt and the rest is pure extension.