Mostly just vibes, difficult to pin down. I think it's related to all the flowery analogies. Many paragraphs "use lots of words while saying nothing". Lots of self-aggrandizing language about how great the method is.
> ItтАЩs a method I call the Miasma-Clearing Protocol. This process doesnтАЩt rely on gut feelings or endlessly tedious debates over plausibility; instead, it systematically evaluates competing theories against all known facts. By forcing each theory to run through this gauntlet, we can separate solid ground from inflatable life rafts and expose the mirages for what they are.
> Now that weтАЩve explored the liarтАЩs playbook, letтАЩs turn the tables and examine how to systematically dismantle their house of cards.
> This exercise is never meant to be definitive, it remains strictly provisional. If a theory survives this gauntlet unscathed, it does not mean itтАЩs the last word! Rather, this rubric is intended to be a ruthlessly efficient method of cutting through the chaff. First we clear the fog тАФ only then does nuance have room to breathe.
I have noticed on X that AI proofreading will suggest terser but less emphatic alternatives. The result is clearer, but it is less conversational, lacking emphasis and 'tone,' so it is more like reading from a textbook, less like a conversation. For communication, AI is a two edged sword.
Interesting. The specific phrasing choices seemed very AI-like to me throughout the whole article, more so than your usual.
Which ones? I can see if I remember. I wonder also if I'm getting cross-influenced
Mostly just vibes, difficult to pin down. I think it's related to all the flowery analogies. Many paragraphs "use lots of words while saying nothing". Lots of self-aggrandizing language about how great the method is.
> ItтАЩs a method I call the Miasma-Clearing Protocol. This process doesnтАЩt rely on gut feelings or endlessly tedious debates over plausibility; instead, it systematically evaluates competing theories against all known facts. By forcing each theory to run through this gauntlet, we can separate solid ground from inflatable life rafts and expose the mirages for what they are.
> Now that weтАЩve explored the liarтАЩs playbook, letтАЩs turn the tables and examine how to systematically dismantle their house of cards.
> This exercise is never meant to be definitive, it remains strictly provisional. If a theory survives this gauntlet unscathed, it does not mean itтАЩs the last word! Rather, this rubric is intended to be a ruthlessly efficient method of cutting through the chaff. First we clear the fog тАФ only then does nuance have room to breathe.
I tend to think and write in imagery and one of my scorned habits is ending up with tons of mixed metaphors.
>we can separate solid ground from inflatable life rafts and expose the mirages for what they are.
I can't remember for sure but I think this was AI, although it's repeating what I thought of regarding life rafts and mirages.
>Now that weтАЩve explored the liarтАЩs playbook, letтАЩs turn the tables and examine how to systematically dismantle their house of cards.
This was AI, it thought a transition sentence was missing.
> First we clear the fog тАФ only then does nuance have room to breathe.
This was originally "Nuance can wait." but AI suggested this instead.
I have noticed on X that AI proofreading will suggest terser but less emphatic alternatives. The result is clearer, but it is less conversational, lacking emphasis and 'tone,' so it is more like reading from a textbook, less like a conversation. For communication, AI is a two edged sword.
Yeah, I have to put my foot down and fight it on this point so hard