Might be stupid, but it works, for now. Over indexed tokens is another (common inclusions). Some grammar constructions, too, where over descriptiveness is present - though that's easy to read and probably a bit harder to code for.

Why is it stupid? As long as people are too lazy to find/replace them, it seems to work.

Different models have different quirks. I use 4o at work and it has an annoying habit of taking things absurdly literally and using emojis and formatting too liberally instead of giving me a useful answer. Claude is much more subdued and helpful because it's conversational when you ask something open-ended, succinct when you ask it something data-driven, and almost always asks a follow-up question.

The sci-fi trope of being able to tell "AIs" apart from one another is absolutely coming true in real-time.

If it works, it works.

It's a crude example, but pattern analysis to figure out who wrote a thing is an old, old technique; people have been doing it with Shakespeare stuff for centuries, in particular.

well, for one, it's more more than 0.1 em dashes per page. the SHARE IT Act has 10 on each page[0]. I don't know how many the 2017 tax cut bill had but it's more than 1,000 and that was over 185 pages[1], and obviously that was before LLMs like ChatGPT. so I don't really know why this is the measure of AI or not, especially because bills have always had a lot of em dashes to start. if you're not analyzing the text of the bill then it's just not going to be accurate

[0] https://www.congress.gov/118/plaws/publ187/PLAW-118publ187.p...

[1] https://www.congress.gov/115/statute/STATUTE-131/STATUTE-131...

Exactly the point of the post (900 pages falls in line with “flooding the zone” mentality), but we don’t have data on the intent.

Author: "A crowd of intellectually-challenged legislators is swept into Congress to serve an equally-dimwitted but far more devious POTUS who has hijacked their entire party. Their election campaigns were backed by endless free news coverage by media moguls and hundreds of millions in cash from an erratic Hugo Drax-like billionaire, all of whom demand a quick return from their investments. They immediately start passing laws they haven't read and don't actually understand, handed down from AI models that are still under development and highly error-prone. Hilarity ensues when..."

Editor: "Don't call us, we'll call you^H^H^H security."

And how do you know it wasn't just edited by someone who loves em-dashes?

comparing it to the average doesn't matter too much. Better evidence would be proving that there has never been a bill with anywhere close to the number of em-dashes used in this bill.