> You actually didn't. The construct is slightly different.

Well I know that I did, so you are wrong with that claim, which sheds a strong (negative) light on other statements of fact that you posted in this discussion.

You may disagree with me, or I may even have gotten something wrong, but just claiming I didn't read the article ... sorry man, I thought HN had higher standards than that.

I think they were referring to your fake llmism

Ah thanks. Fair.

They were pointing out that "It's not a Waymo-bashing article, it cautions against the long term effects on research." does not sound like LLM-generated text.

It would sound kind of LLM-y if you had said "It's not an anti-Waymo article. It's an article about how assistive technology is quietly degrading research."

(Of course, the correct approach to detecting AI is not counting LLM-isms, but feeding long-form text through a classifier model and picking up statistical correlations that are more in-distribution with LLM text than human text.)

Correct. I was already pretty sure, but I wouldn't have written that post without checking Pangram first.

"It's not a Waymo-bashing article, it cautions against the long term effects on research." is not an LLMism. It superficially resembles one, but that's it.

(Nor is what I just wrote, there.)