Hey, we need an archived link to this post. Anyone can help, everyone has an hour to post it. Rule 6.
https://xcancel.com/HunterBiden/status/2069797401078939851#m
You could've DMed me.
Actually seems like a really cool practice to allow anyone to pickup the ball on correction in case OP wasn't online.
Especially with an hour time limit. I've come back to replies from 3, 4, 5 hours ago and I'm on here pretty regularly.
Anyone can help
It wasn't directed just at you.
Does anyone else smell his AI collaborator?
You can thank Republican donors for contributing: https://www.axios.com/2026/06/15/republican-primary-meddling-democrats-midterms-ny
They're boosting what they percieve to be "unelectable" candidates in Democratic primaries, but I think this effort will backfire.
Democrats did the same thing (boosting MAGA candidates in Republican primaries), and that backfired big time.
And also: capitalism is failing the majority of people by continuing to funnel wealth to those who already have money. Voters are offered a choice between two options, neither of which actually want to solve this, because both major parties are controlled by wealthy corporate donors. The two-party system prevents any third party, no matter their platform, from having any chance at election.
Democratic socialist candidates got elected in NY because Mamdani is demonstrably helping people in actual, tangible ways. The most famous example is fixing potholes. This is a breath of fresh air for voter and is the same "sewer socialism" strategy used in the first half of the 1900s in wisconsin, which focused on pragmatically improving life for the general public...famously by improving the sewer system.
Capitalism isn't failing. It's succeeding; doing exactly what it's always done.
"Liberal democracy" is failing, because it is an oxymoron. The concept of democracy being compatible with an economic system where every org is a plutocracy/oligarchy with enormous wealth (power) inequality, is a mass-delusional mental illness. It was never going to work on any meaningful timeline.
HunterGPT
I am no Hunter apologist by any means, but this doesn't look like an LLM wrote it to me.
Not saying Hunter himself wrote it either; just doesn't look like a machine.
"The lesson under the lesson:" is a very LLM closing statement.
I mean the AIs copied it from somewhere
Seriously. AI talks like this because this is how effective communicators talk. The fact that people are getting turned off by this way of communicating and seeking out worse writing is concerning, and yet another way that AI is contributing to the dumbing down of society.
And the multiple "It's not [x], it's [y]"
"sword | question mark"
"strategy | empty room"
An LLM probably didn't write it but it reads so painfully like the LLM dialect I cringed the entire time even though I agreed.
Same here. I've likely personally cost openAI tens of thousands of dollars as a consumer user. I've seen tens of thousands of responses across a wide range of LLM voices and I know it in my bones that Hunter used AI for this.
Every single point is the same length and ends with an aphoristic zinger. It's not X it's Y (people know to avoid this and em dashes since it's a lazy LLM tell.) there's a consistent cadence to it but little substance. The cave man version of his points use less than 10 syllables. The prose is extremely even. Humans have variation in how they write especially when making impassioned bluesky posts lol.
To demonstrate here's my argument from above processed through clause
I've spent years as a heavy AI user — we're talking tens of thousands of interactions across models and voices. Pattern recognition at that scale becomes intuitive in the same way a sommelier stops consciously analyzing and just knows. What flags this for me isn't any single element. It's the consistency. Every point is approximately the same length. Every point ends with a punchy, quotable closer. The prose quality never dips or spikes — there are no throwaway lines, no moments where the writing gets lazy or overexcited. Humans don't write that way, especially not in impassioned social media posts. Strip each point to its core claim and you're left with less than ten syllables of actual content. The rest is rhetorical packaging. Elegant, even packaging — but packaging nonetheless. People have learned to avoid em dashes and "it's not X, it's Y" constructions because those are known tells. But the underlying architecture remains. The fingerprint isn't any single phrase. It's the absence of variation. It's the fact that nothing here is accidental. Hunter Biden's documented voice is the opposite of this. This tweet is what happens when you prompt a model to sound like him.
He did the "It's not X, it's Y" thing twice in a single tweet. Lol
It's a common rhetorical device, especially for politicians. I don't think it's a smoking gun for LLM-ness at all.
The "not A but Z" thing and variations thereof was pretty common before LLMs. The noticeable thing about their usage of it is they're trying to use language meant to take the reader from something they might genuinely be confused about to a surprising conclusion, and using it in a way that's entirely banal. It relies on distance between A and Z, and genuine possibly of either. Humans tend to have way better intuition about what is surprising to other humans, and don't make insane mistakes like LLMs do.
Rather than have "Z" be self-evidently interesting, the LLM need to tell us that it's not "A". Except no one thought anything was "A" in the first place, and the "Z" is barely a "B" let alone a "Z".
This also goes for couplings of three short descriptors ("Simple. Intuitive. Seamless.") and summations ("the important part to realise is:"), bullet point lists, etc. All techniques to say: here's the important part, here's the bit you should listen to.
This all being said: the tweet smells like ai to me. Wtf does he mean by sword
We are seriously about 18 months away from people thinking punctuation and complete sentences are AI because they have literally never read anything not posted on Twitter or Facebook.
I can smell the LLM a mile away.
It's not the words, it's the structure.
It's not thing A, it's thing B.
Thing C is nothing. Thing D is everything.
Big list generated from the prompt "establishment democrats are bullshit and NYC mayor proves it!!!"
Incredible how "its not x its y" is being weaponized against critics of the establishment. Like, I really couldn't give a shit about Hunter Biden, he's a joke. Also fuck AI, I wouldn't defend it.
But what you're describing is a teaching method. Just because it gets aped by ai doesn't mean all comparisons are AI. Paulo Friere uses it heavily in his pedagogical method. It was also the name of a book series on teaching methods.. Both were written years, even decades, before the invention of generative text.
Its a basic way of explaining complicated concepts, where you not only have to describe what something is, but what it isn't. You are using a negating method by saying that the text of this tweet is actually not worth considering, because it was generated by AI. Its rhetorical sophistry, presented without evidence, to create confusion and cheapen people's ability to explain or understand complicated concepts, and criticize our own reality.
I dont agree with all of his points, but your argument is cheap and socially toxic.
The Freire comparison is interesting but it's doing a lot of work here. Pedagogical numbered lists exist, sure. But Freire's prose is dense, contradictory, occasionally frustrating — because he's actually working through ideas in real time. This tweet is frictionless. Every point lands clean. Nothing trips over itself. That's not a teaching method. That's editing. Specifically, the kind of editing that removes every rough edge until what's left is a series of punchy, shareable, individually quotable lines — each one exactly long enough to screenshot. You're right that they haven't provided a smoking gun. Neither have you. But "humans have written structured lists before" isn't a rebuttal to a specific stylistic critique, it's just pointing at the category and saying the category exists. The question isn't whether a human could write this. It's whether the particular texture of this writing — the evenness, the rhythm, the way it never once loses the thread or goes somewhere unexpected — feels like someone thinking, or someone approving.
Okay I agree and on second thought comparing Hunter Biden to Paulo Friere is, um, a stretch. I'm more responding to this trend where people say, oh you can tell its ai cuz there's em-dashes, or cuz it fits the pattern of "its this not that."
With a political subject, people can be very bad faith. Centrist Democrats calling argument a "whataboutism" or a Russian bot, are two very prescient examples. Meanwhile, I find this method of defining a subject in the positive and the negative to be very useful in political discussion, to define not just the essence but the contours/limits of a political subject. It is a good way to make a subject concrete. It makes me nervous to see these arguments more and more. People already accuse each other of being "bots" way too often.
The bot-accusation inflation point is real and worth taking seriously. Crying bot has become a way to dismiss arguments without engaging them, and that's corrosive. But there's a difference between "this argument pattern feels automated" and "this specific piece of text has characteristics that are hard to explain otherwise." I'm not flagging Hunter's tweet because it uses a rhetorical structure I associate with AI. I'm flagging it because of the evenness. The way every single point is load-bearing. Nothing wasted, nothing unpolished, no moment where the writer got carried away or lost the thread or made a point that was slightly weaker than the others. Human writing has texture. It has a sentence that runs too long, a point that didn't quite land, an aside that reveals what the writer actually cares about. Impassioned political posts especially — people leak. They let something slip that's more personal than the rest, or they overstate a point because they're angry. This has none of that. Every point is exactly as strong as every other point. That's not discipline. That's generation.
I say it elsewhere, that I have a difficult time identifying Ai generated text, for whatever reason. Ai pictures and voices, I can spot right away. But for whatever reason its not super apparent to me when people use ai to generate text, its more of an afterthought rather than something that stands out to me. Its interesting because I have an art and music background, but I dont have any formal training with writing, even though I do it quite often, and I'm a strong reader. It makes me uncomfortable that there's still some vector where they can trick me
This reminded me of a post I saw the other day on Bluesky.
"As a hack writer, the fact that em-dashes and the rule of three have become signifiers of AI demonstrates that they're not just stealing my job, they're ruining all my favorite tools too."
Absolutely. You're right to call me out on that. It's not helpful, it's socially toxic. Also, and this is where truth combines with facts to create understanding &emdash; Hunter used Claude to write that post.
We want less people addicted to online debate and more people active within their society. What do you think Madani was doing before getting elected. He was on the streets, in the churches, anywhere where people are. Not on a big platform making big statements.
Liberals 0.5 seconds into the DNC being criticized for losing elections and not inspiring interest: "Did an AI write this? Only a robot would want the Democrats to win elections."
If progressives take over the party then wouldn't you want Democrats to win the elections at least they want a democracy. The right wing has decided if it is a choice between democracy and power they want power.
Democracy isn't an end in and of itself; if you're ever choosing between democracy and weilding power to do the things you were elected to to, that would benefit the people, you don't have a democracy.
This is relevant when the corporate democrats find all the red tape they need to justify not taking actions their voters want, but their donors don't.
It does read like bullet points that I have gotten out of ChatGPT before.
Thats not to say he didn't get his thoughts down and then have AI arrange them
AI writing.
Please stop boosting this ai slop by a genocide supporting dude. Hate this recent boosting of every post of Hunter Biden's.
7 is the one a lot of people on the left will miss is targeted at them. Cynicism is the path to defeat, pragmatism is the path to actual change, and it almost always routes through the status quo, not around it. Mamdani didn't sit around bitching about the DNC, nor did he try to run as a third party. He met voters where where they are, and in NYC that's the Democratic party. Now he looks like a king maker. This took him barely a year, during which time showed that the establishment's power to enforce preferences is actually far more limited than many believe.
This man is CORRUPT and holds NO Valuable Opinion to the Democratic Party!
-The Democratic Party that ELECTED His Father!
He has a tremendous hog, though. It's a matter of public record.
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
