The attackers specifically targeted orphaned projects on AUR so it’s no wonder most of those aren’t familiar to us.

You can stop pulling the lever at any time. All that happens is modern society unravels as we enter the financial equivalent of a thermonuclear bomb going off. The same will happen but slightly worse if you keep holding the lever.

Let’s break it down:

❌ we fucked up

❌ We didn’t verify who we were sponsoring

✅ We’re really sorry 🥺😭

If your partner cheated on you and apologized with AI would knowing that fact be fruitless also?

Not everyone. So far I’m a couple comments deep and the AI blind people can’t tell.

I’m just so sick of blatantly obvious AI being an argument with people who somehow are tricked into thinking it’s real…

In fact I did, because I wrote that with AI 😂

Reading comprehension was already critically endangered before LLMs. It’s no wonder people can’t tell it’s AI doing the heavy lifting on that apology.

That’s… exactly my point though? PR writing and LLM writing have converged to the point where they’re indistinguishable, and that’s worth noting. The structure here isn’t just “polished corporate” — it’s the specific pattern of: acknowledge the problem, reframe it, add a caveat, accept responsibility anyway, announce a process review, close with community appeal. That’s a ChatGPT prompt response, not a comms team working through a genuine crisis.

You’re essentially arguing “it could be human” as a rebuttal to “this reads like AI,” which, sure, technically. But the tell isn’t any single phrase — it’s the whole skeleton. PR people write defensively. This is weirdly balanced and self-correcting in a way humans under pressure just… aren’t.

You’re right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.

My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can’t substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company’s genuine attempt at accountability.

I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn’t have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that’s on me.

I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn’t. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton’s statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.

But that distinction doesn’t excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn’t meet it this time. I’m now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.

“you’re right to raise this” is an LLMism on the same level as “You’re exactly right!”

Edit: You’re right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.

My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can’t substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company’s genuine attempt at accountability.

I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn’t have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that’s on me.

I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn’t. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton’s statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.

But that distinction doesn’t excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn’t meet it this time. I’m now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.

He influenced me to hate apple and support right to repair.

I know what you mean but he’s the definition of influencer just instead of selling vapid sponsored products he’s selling 44 minute long autistic rants where his hyper fixation is consumer rights.

Have you ever yelled at Claude or chatgpt and had it apologize to you? It’s literally word for word this format. Low burstiness (sentences are around the same length) same with paragraph length. Absolutely perfect grammar and it reads like LLM vomited it out. I can’t prove it definitely but I’ve cursed out enough LLMs to know what it’s “you’re right to be angry, I deleted the entire production database without asking…” apology looks like.

Have you run it through an AI checker?

Have a real human type out the apology

Edit:

You’re right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.

My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can’t substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company’s genuine attempt at accountability.

I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn’t have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that’s on me.

I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn’t. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton’s statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.

But that distinction doesn’t excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn’t meet it this time. I’m now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.

The irony that your comment will never reach its intended audience

I prefer Sudo Nala upgrade. It pulls updates before upgrading and does parallel downloads, saturating my 2GB download.

This is why IMO blitz scaling is dumb when your service is a commodity. I’m not any more loyal to Uber than Skip. If more investor money goes into making a cheaper meal or ride on Skip I use that. Consumers are mercenaries about that stuff.

The “blitz” part of blitz scaling assumes your customers can’t move.

Same here. It’s daily updates that work perfectly and constantly improve UI/UX. Revanced is like a broken down Ford now who knows if it’ll start or work.

If it works for orphaned wells and patent trolls it’ll work for this