It’s stated at the bottom of the webpage. After a few paragraphs at the start I was like… “ok surely this is AI generated” and popped it in a few detectors. i happened to scroll to the bottom to see how long the dang thing was and saw the disclaimer. i wish this former lab insider—who surely has money and at least one eloquent friend—could’ve paid another human being to rewrite it. but alas!
Ah, this was not there when I read the piece (Jan 23). You can see an archived version here in which it doesn’t say that.
The statement now at the bottom of the webpage says: “To conceal stylistic identifiers of the authors, the above text is a sentence-for-sentence rewrite of an original hand-written composition processed via Claude Opus 4.5.”
I don’t actually believe that this is how the document was made. A few reasons. First, I don’t think this is what a sentence-for-sentence rewrite looks like; I don’t think you get that much of the AI style that this piece has with that^. Second, the stories in the interlude are superrrrr AI-y, not just in sentence-by-sentence style but in other ways. Third, the chapter and part titles seem very AI generated.
I might be wrong about this. Some experiments that would be useful here. One, give the piece sans titles to Claude and ask it to come up with titles; see how well they match. Two, do some sentence-by-sentence rewrites of other texts and see how much AI style they have^.
FWIW I think this work is valuable, I’m glad I read it, and I’ve recommended it to people. I do think the first ‘half’ of the document is better in both content and style than the second half. In particular, the piece becomes significantly more slop-ish starting with the interlude (and continuing to the end).
^The piece has 31 uses of “genuine”/“genuinely” in ~17000 words. One “genuine” every 550 words. Does Claude insert “genuinely”s when sentence-by-sentence rewriting? I genuinely don’t know!
It’s stated at the bottom of the webpage. After a few paragraphs at the start I was like… “ok surely this is AI generated” and popped it in a few detectors. i happened to scroll to the bottom to see how long the dang thing was and saw the disclaimer. i wish this former lab insider—who surely has money and at least one eloquent friend—could’ve paid another human being to rewrite it. but alas!
Ah, this was not there when I read the piece (Jan 23). You can see an archived version here in which it doesn’t say that.
The statement now at the bottom of the webpage says: “To conceal stylistic identifiers of the authors, the above text is a sentence-for-sentence rewrite of an original hand-written composition processed via Claude Opus 4.5.”
I don’t actually believe that this is how the document was made. A few reasons. First, I don’t think this is what a sentence-for-sentence rewrite looks like; I don’t think you get that much of the AI style that this piece has with that^. Second, the stories in the interlude are superrrrr AI-y, not just in sentence-by-sentence style but in other ways. Third, the chapter and part titles seem very AI generated.
I might be wrong about this. Some experiments that would be useful here. One, give the piece sans titles to Claude and ask it to come up with titles; see how well they match. Two, do some sentence-by-sentence rewrites of other texts and see how much AI style they have^.
FWIW I think this work is valuable, I’m glad I read it, and I’ve recommended it to people. I do think the first ‘half’ of the document is better in both content and style than the second half. In particular, the piece becomes significantly more slop-ish starting with the interlude (and continuing to the end).
^The piece has 31 uses of “genuine”/“genuinely” in ~17000 words. One “genuine” every 550 words. Does Claude insert “genuinely”s when sentence-by-sentence rewriting? I genuinely don’t know!