presentation and formatting aside the constant attempts to manufacture legitimacy and signal urgency are a classic tell. everything is "near-100%" reliable, urgent, critical, reproducible, catastrophic. siren emoji
I can't believe saying a security vulnerability is "reproducible", "critical", etc. is a "classic tell of ai".
I've used "reproducible" and "critical" in my deliverables since well before ai was a thing.
+ it is maybe 10% AI max, which seems to be for the structure / readability, and there is legit information under.
And because random HNer says it is ai doesn't mean it is ai.
>But still, is it so important?
Not to me, no. If the information is useful/entertaining/etc., I don't really care. But having to read "it's ai!" comments on literally every article/blog posted for the next 10 years is going to be super annoying. Especially if the reasoning provided is "they used the word critical". At least you pointed to something kind of interesting with the quotation marks (although, certainly not definitive of anything), rather than saying some extremely common word = ai.
What bothers me about the Wiz post is why they want to hide this HTTP request is actually not helpful in terms of security.
On the plus side, they help getting the word out there, so at least something.
Same way if you read an article full of typos you lose trust in it. Those tells of AI voice undermine the author and make the reader suspicious
https://web.archive.org/web/20251203162416/https://www.wiz.i...
(Note also that you can end up with mismatched quotes if you paste in a segment of text from some other source that uses them, which is pretty common in journalism for a fast-changing story.)
Mismatched smart quotes are visible in this archive.
Not for long! This seems like this will soon be the only way to put something on the internet without people rabidly saying its ai (at least for a few weeks, until people start prompting for typos to be included).