Can't describe now what exactly I meant about the writing and normally I refrain from accusing LLM usage because of such gut feelings. So sorry.

Of course people have published LLM texts on their personal sites, but that doesn't mean you do.

So far I only skimmed that post, will re-read it later.

Like i said, I commented after reading the first couple of paragraphs, which to me sound like LLM-assisted fiction (it does not mean they are, I was hoping for someone to clear that up):

> During my recent journey to Berlin—a city where every street corner whispers secrets of a divided past—I uncovered the chilling reality of "Zersetzung." > This was not just another research assignment; it was an immersive exploration into the dark art of psychological warfare. > Amidst the solemn corridors of historic museums, I engaged with former STASI operatives and leading experts, drawing on my extensive background in human intelligence and interrogations. > Their firsthand accounts and my rigorous investigation reveal how East Germany's covert strategy was designed to systematically dismantle not only dissent but the very essence of a person's identity

No first-hand account is referenced in detail later, the article goes on in a weirdly encyclopedic style, given the introduction. It also jumps to equating the Stasi with modern types of discourse silencing.

Which might have merit! Just seemed weird given the beginning of the article.

Berlin doesn't seem to have any special relevance later in the article, but the author says that this is based on "firsthand accounts" and that their "rigorous investigation reveal how East Germany's covert strategy was designed".

I have previously read things and watched films about the Stasi (an important and interesting subject).

Bur I'm not an expert in this subject and also have no first- or second-hand experience as victim, with regimes like the DDR.

My gripe was nothing about the article's content, it just seemed as if there was no original research and the article might have been a summary of other sources.

In my opinion, while this should not be claimed lightly, it is absolutely OK to say that a piece of writing sounds like AI-generated content and ask about it.

I'm deeply sorry if this reads like I wanted to discredit an honest creator (why would I want that?)

Maybe I sound like an LLM too, sure? Or maybe the author used one to write just one or two paragraphs? I don't know!

> Join me as we delve deep into the meticulously orchestrated tactics of the Stasi—a narrative that is as compelling as it is disturbing, and one that continues to resonate in today’s era of digital manipulation.

Adjective-heavy fluff like this screams "ChatGPT"/LLM to me, and I don't see why I would not comment that when it exceeds my personal threshold for perceiving it this way.

I put in a "disclaimer" because I anticipated this coming across as rude.

Claiming that my question (or questioning any online text source) would be in line of some political "Zersetzung" strategy seems like an insult to actual victims of the Stasi to me. Of which I am not one, but my question was also not some political slander or attempt to silence the author.

Have a good day.