HN guidelines: “Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.”
There are multiple tells to me which indicate that the article is not GPT or similar. Edit: I do agree there is word salad, but many writers/thinkers do that as good as any ML system ;-)
I don't think so. Uncurated GPT-3 output is generally very noticeable because it is unable to hold coherence for an article of this length, and will often make the same points over and over in slight variations and sometimes even contradict itself. I see none of that in this article. I do agree that the general "feel" of the text is similar to reading GPT-3 output, but this seems to be just because the author has a somewhat rambling argumentation style. (I can relate; my own tendency is to ramble on loosely related topics when writing down my thoughts.)
This could of course be curated GPT-3 content, but sufficiently curated GPT-3 output is indistinguishable from human writing, so there's little reason to criticize the article on those grounds.
edit: Well, inspecting the site some more, I agree that there's a moderate chance that this is a test run for a process or a program that uses some kind of novel technique to get GPT-3 or some other LM to produce more coherent essays. I'm still about 80% confident there's a human in the loop, though.
The other articles on the website it should be noted, are written in a style that looks very different from the style of this article.