[teiferer]

> This is such a well written story, [...] you should also get credit for how you've woven this narrative together, it's a lovely read.

Don't forget to give credit to the LLM too which wrote the story for him.

[benstopics]

Sure, it's 2026 I used Claude to write a lot of it. But tell me this. Do you know which paragraphs I wrote?

[rgovostes]

Setting aside the style, I think you asked for more output — 5,000 words — than your prompt supports, so the model repeated the same details over and over to stretch out the story after it hits the major notes.

Obvious tells are repetitive numeric details: the number of lines of code (mentioned six times!), the number of pages in the manual, the ages of the developers, the age of the game, etc. The narrative itself also repeats, like the Steam rejection included verbatim twice, especially after the Prologue hit most of the beats in the first 400 words.

[markstos]

It has a particular style I’ve seen lately using more short confident sentences as professional writers do. But it lacks the professional writer’s sense of when to add an anecdote and when to leave out a detail. And it is this juxtaposition that gives it a distinctive LLM feel of being written in the style of a professional writer, yet something is off.

[Eisenstein]

Please don't feel the need to be defensive about this. People are reacting in a predictable way to a shift in how effort is perceived.

Where one formerly could use a certain way of writing as a heuristic for effort put into content they are spending time ingesting, now that heuristic is meaningless and a new one must replace it.

At this point some people have decided 'has markers of AI writing' is the heuristic to match 'no/low effort' on, and are trying to use shame in order to start a system of self-policing against it. Unfortunately that isn't going to work, because

1. the heuristic is flawed

2. most people are going to end up using AI tools for writing, since writing well is difficult

[duskdozer]

I don't, because I stopped reading after I recognized LLM output. You could basically take all the comments you wrote in this thread verbatim and it would still be better, even if there are some grammar errors here or there. Please give yourself more credit.

[SeanDav]

I.Don't.Care.

I enjoyed the narrative. It was true. Who cares if it was written by a ghost writer, an AI or anything else.

[oscaracso]

I did not read it because the prose was insipid. Maybe the project is interesting, but I won't know because I'm not going to read an infomercial. You must understand that this stuff is not to everyone's taste.

[dmos62]

Thankfully you came up with this pulitzer prize of a comment all on your own, didn't you?

[stavros]

Can we stop with this? The world has changed, LLMs exist, people use them, and "omg LLMs" is a very tired trope now. If you didn't like the article, you can critique it, but "you used a tool I don't like" is just boring.

[duskdozer]

Why should I spend more time reading something than the person spent writing it? The fact is that generating large amounts of text without care or effort has become very easy, so it makes perfect sense to discard writing with LLM signatures.

[Marazan]

I personally find LLM text exceptionally boring and tiresome to read. It is often incredibly voluminous and filed with trite phrasing that turns a one sentence idea into 3 paragraphs of pablum.

Yes, this has been inspired by a senior management figure in my company posting a clearly LLM assited 500 word slack message that could have been 2 lines.

[duskdozer]

How about people who want to spam LLM output just provide their input alongside the output? I'd be happy to read their input.

[Cruncharoo]

My thought is that if you don’t care enough to even write it then why should I care to read it? The answer for me is that I don’t.

[grey-area]

I and many others find it a useful warning. So I doubt people will stop noting it as part of a critique of things.

'You used a tool I don't like' is really missing the point.

'You generated text that is long and a bit boring and will probably include falsehoods.' is a more accurate description of why people pick up on this - the style is an indicator of using a tool that generates convincing garbage.

[rel_ic]

What I want is for THIS to stop. "Listen, no one wants to hear about your moral issues, just stfu."

Don't give up so easily. Let the discomfort in and try & figure out why people keep saying "omg LLMs" until you can hear what they are actually saying.

[elektronika]

It's tiresome. I would rather read the bullet points he fed in and be done.