Unfortunately and ironically this has all the marks of AI writing.
> The problem isn’t the intention—it’s the architecture. You can’t optimize one part of a child and expect the rest to unfold naturally. Learning isn’t modular. Once efficiency takes hold, it doesn’t stay in its lane. It reshapes what matters.
use of "not this — that", em dash, staccato sentences to make a point, unnecessary metaphor, etc
Either actual writers who care about typography, or actual writers who have had their writings edited by a real editor. Or even anyone just curious enough about writing that they picked up a manual of style.
i'm a frequent em-dash user. it's great for little appositive clauses because it can make the sentence feel less cluttered than commas.
but i have no idea how to type an em-dash. you just put in a double-dash/hyphen (i.e. "--") and any modern word processors will know to convert it to an em-dash for you.
I suspect that lots of writers who use this trick are getting unfairly slammed with "omg, youre an AI! no human knows how to type that character!"
You're conveniently replying to the weakest point of the parent comment. They listed a several more reasons, and when taken together, the article reeks of LLM generated content.
Of course, they certainly do. But this article is really something else! I don't care if it's written by AI or not, but it has a rhetorical style that relies much more on rhythm than on connecting the conceptual dots. Like a TED talk or a revivalist preacher.
It doesn't prove anything but it's a highly suggestive signature. I would hazard a guess that it would be rare for most writers to use an em dash every other sentence.
It happens as soon as the fourth sentence (maybe even the third):
> There was a silence at the table—not confusion, but recognition.
Then keeps happening again and again and again to the point where it would be obnoxious even if a human wrote it.
It's unbelievable to me that there's a kind of person who would publish an article about learning that is so obviously AI generated, and from a professor nonetheless. Maybe this is some sort of experiment or an ironic joke that went over my head.
LLM argumentative essays tend to have this "gish-gallop" energy; say a bunch of tenuously related and vaguely supported things, leave the reader wondering if it was the author who failed to connect the dots, or them
Yeah, this reads as AI Generated. The opening para, and several subsequent paras, have this specific flow that I associate with an LLM asked to write an essay.
> The problem isn’t the intention—it’s the architecture. You can’t optimize one part of a child and expect the rest to unfold naturally. Learning isn’t modular. Once efficiency takes hold, it doesn’t stay in its lane. It reshapes what matters.
use of "not this — that", em dash, staccato sentences to make a point, unnecessary metaphor, etc
I stopped reading at this point.