Posting highly formatted but substanceless empty fluff is not a "writing style", it's spam. A human is certainly capable of doing that if they set their mind to it, but occams razor strongly points to automation.

It’s the classic AI writing style — restating the original point in unnecessarily elaborate terms, explaining the joke as if the reader needs a literature review, setting up a false dichotomy, and ending with a neat little generalized takeaway. Add some em dashes and words like “rather than” and “as though,” and you’ve got the whole package. It’s not any one quirk; it’s the cumulative effect of sounding polished, verbose, and weirdly over-explanatory without actually adding much.

Why should the argument source matter? Because the whole point of social media is for people to communicate with other people. We want to share ideas with each other.

If all you can do is copy/paste, you're a failure. If you were in school, you'd fail for plagiarism. You're wasting electricity and wasting our time. Sorry.

Or, if all you want to do is share someone else's idea, just put a URL to the place where they said it. Don't pretend it's your contribution when it's not.

The problem with automating social media posts is that they definitionally cannot have "merit". The primary function of slop is not to "argue" but to "flood the zone with shit" and create a plausible consensus for whatever opinion the person running the LLMs wants. We saw this with paid humans before LLMs. It's not new.

A human will never be able to win a debate against an LLM bot "on the merits" because their function is to waste your time. An LLM cannot stand on merit, cannot hold a position, and cannot construct an argument. The words that are output by an LLM have no connection to any inside mind or model of the world. The only way to win a debate with an LLM is the same way you win a debate with a troll: identify the hallmarks and refuse to engage.