No worries, I don't mean to disparage your article. At least it avoids some of the most annoying LLMism I have seen, and given its length you must have put some effort into prompting, researching, or editing. Hope you will find your own voice as you write more and more.
Youtube these days is full of probably great and interesting documentaries, where people put a lot of time in, but when I hear these typical LLM narrations I can't make it more then a few seconds in, they are horrible.
It is LLM with a clever prompt that avoids the most egregious tells (though "load-bearing" appears).
The number of times the article goes on complete tangents, introducing new irrelevant names and the general useless level of detail, all in perfect verbose English points to an LLM. So does the upbeat and persuasive style.
If you write that level of detail, use a historian's style and footnotes. Do not use the synthetic LLM voice that is optimized for rhetoric.
I've thought that a lot of present LLM-speak is a distant descendant of the heyday of the "Now See This", Buzzfeed, et al clickbait that was en vogue about a decade or dozen years ago. A sort of chirpy contrarian provocation to drive reader engagement. "You won't believe how this X" begets "this isn't just Y -- it's Z." So it will be a style that eventually leaves as new models are trained on other writing.
Where the heck did LLMs (Claude in particular) pick up the "load-bearing" tic I wonder? I'm over a half century old and read a lot, and I don't think I've ever seen load-bearing used so much before I noticed Claude using it all the time a few months back.
To me, the fact that it exhibits various telltale signs of LLMism is not the main problem; it is annoying mostly due to personal preference, just like I am annoyed by the writing style of some authors from the 19th century.
The main problem is that LLM writing inevitably slips in nonsensical phrases and sentences that are plausible but, upon inspection, turn out to be dilutions at best and deceptions at worst. They are such non-sequiturs that it is indefensible to consider them the crystallized results of a logical thought process, so I greatly dislike them regardless of authorship, and so far, it has been mostly LLMs that produce them. However, this is not a new thing, as Orwell put it from 1946:
> the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts [...] Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.
Here are some examples from this article, which I am listing with the sole hope to elicit the same concern of frivolous writing from readers, not as any an attack on the author of this piece:
> The 1955 trade was the system already past its own decision point, picking up the pieces. The blunder happened five years earlier. [...] Everything after, [...], was the system mechanically playing out the consequences of the June 1950 decision.
What is "the system" here? The US government, the FBI, or just a vague blob of fate and the passage of time? What exact had this system been doing that counts as "picking up the pieces"? What was exactly mechanical about the events between 1950 and 1955?
> He later recalled in characteristically dry phrasing that "many of the officers in the U.S. Army in missiles and rockets were students in this program".
Is the quote really especially dry? Is this purported dryness a part of Qian's character? If yes, then we sue did not see it elsewhere.
> The hierarchy in the interrogation room was not what casual U.S.-narrative framings would assume.
What is even "casual US-narrative framings"?
> The Jiang family connection is structurally important, and the 1955 PRC-side claim that Qian was a long-standing Communist sympathiser is structurally implausible because his wife was the daughter of a senior Kuomintang figure
What do "structurally important" and "structurally implausible" mean here? What is the big structure that this connection played an important role in?
> This was the public peak.
The peak of his publicity I guess. The public peak is in Nepal.
> He was, on the public record at that exact moment, one of the leading American aerospace scientists. He was not a junior researcher who could be replaced.
Who read till this point would need this clarification that he was an expendable junior researcher?
> They are produced by a sequence of external shocks that hardens the U.S. political environment around him in the eighteen months before his clearance is revoked.
(Minor but somehow this sentence is in present tense.)
> His later assessment of the trade was accurate pricing made in real time by an official with the position to assess it, though he was reading the wrong decision.
"accurate pricing" as metaphor for "accurate assessment"?
> The imprisonment was the trade's cause, not the trade.
The trade was not the trade's cause, or the imprisonment was not the trade, or something else?
> The Soviets were trying to slow the propagation of capability that had already been absorbed
If the knowledge had already been absorbed, what use is withdrawing the blueprints? The conclusion that the Soviets must have thought the Chinese could become independent because they took the materials away is quite dubious.
> the capability foundation was laid
What does "capability foundation" mean?
> The doctrine is the kill-first-from-distance-using-superior-detection-and-networked-sensors-and-long-range-missiles doctrine that Qian outlined in the Toward New Horizons volume on the launching of a winged missile for supersonic flight.
No mention of the doctrine prior to this sentence, while the next sentence says that the aformentioned PL-15 embodies that doctrine. Could it have just been written as one sentence?
> the structural threat to U.S. naval power projection
"structural" here we go again
> The same pattern is visible at every other layer of the strategic-technology spectrum in 2026.
No mention of any pattern prior to this point, except the vague development of China war capability.
> This is what compounding looks like when you imprison the carrier you needed to retain
Does this event have that many precedents that it deserves to be written down as an aphorism?
> That chain was the thing that walked out the door. The methodology is what the chain was running on
I honestly don't know what chain and methodology here refer to, much less whether the metaphor is sensible.
> The dimension of the transfer that has no Soviet equivalent and no Western parallel is this one.
"The dimension of the transfer"?
> structural features
"structural"
> multi-disciplinary integration across specialties
"multi-disciplinary" = "across specialties"
> The methodology was specifically Western, specifically von Kármán-lineage, and specifically transferable through a single carrier
What does "specifically" even mean when it applies to 3 things at once?
> The fact that he was available to be that carrier was a function of the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship program, von Kármán's recruitment decisions at Caltech, the wartime mobilisation that placed him at the centre of the U.S. air-power apparatus, and the Red Scare architecture that produced his imprisonment. The full chain had to operate. Removing any link in it produces a different outcome.
A lot to say "changing the past affects the future".
> Wang Huning, who became Xi Jinping's chief ideologist, sits in a tradition that runs directly through Qian's cybernetic-systems-engineering work, and the methodology runs into Chinese state-planning architecture along that lineage
What is this "tradition", and what is that "lineage" exactly?
> The way I read it
A subjective thought! A cause for celebration.
> paired with Chen Yun's 摸着石头过河 as the operational sidekick.
"operational sidekick"?
> The same machinery, operating on essentially the same evidentiary basis, produced bounded internal exile for Oppenheimer and unbounded external transfer for Qian
"bounded" and "unbounded" here mean nothing, as both are bounded by the Earth size? What is even the point of talking about geographical difference when the political difference is of dominant interest here?
> structural dynamic
> moral architecture
...
> The Oppenheimer-Qian-Japan triangle reveals the same pattern repeatedly.
Finding these supposedly aforementioned "pattern"s is like finding Waldo.
Why would anyone spend the time to read something so long that's been generated by an LLM? The topic seems super interesting otherwise and would benefit from the real human voice. OP, can you elaborate on why you decided to go this direction?
I considered against publishing this piece because it could be taken as propaganda.
But America did derive the same idea, back in 1878 and was part of philosophy behind the New Deal. So what do Americans have to be sour about and call it propaganda for, when the American academia and government abandoned empiricism for whatever they believed in 2026?
I think it'd be rather uncharitable to assume this was written by a human:
>The error was not stupidity, corruption, or ideology, but a structural failure of the threat-detection apparatus to model what the asset actually represented.
Thanks to your link, I read both. There's distinct information in each of them, I'd say its worth reading both.
The blog author is an "LLM enthusiast", at a minimum I'll give them credit for pointing their agent at an interesting set of Wikipedia articles. Maybe a blog platform tied to Markdown format is going to produce similar looking posts.
The article is a sensational piece without a large historical caveat on the Soviet response to Qian moving to China, along with the very important information that his wife was KMT, and they were treated as traitors to the Taiwanese government at the time. However Qian was insistent on removing any trace to America and he refused to visit America thereafter.
I don't fully understand this, but I appreciate that the articles contain different information and there may be significant differences.
However, HN readers really don't want to read LLM-generated text. The feeling in the community is that rather than sharing the generated output, you should share the prompt, i.e. the part a human actually wrote. Users here are quite capable of interacting with LLMs themselves.
This is pretty much my writing with some edits around content I wanted to simplify. The article linked is not the same content at all. Not only does it only focus on the American perspective, it proposes the opposite of what I was trying to convey. The idea that this article is anywhere the same as "read an article containing essentially the same information without the pesky LLM voice" is just flat out misleading.
I buy it that this guy is incredibly important in the history of aerospace engineering and the weapons industry, but the article seems like it's making an overly strong claim that the trajectory of American and Chinese tech development was so affected by Qian Xuesen. There are, after all, many other people involved in both trajectories. Would Qian have been so successful in China if the economic and political incentives to listen to him had not been there? Had Qian stayed in America, is there a guarantee that the infrastructure necessary to support his doctrine on technological development would have been available?
Reminds me of the results of a large Slavic country going to war with a much smaller, once subordinate, now independent republic that was the source of their best engineers.
It's a false analogy. Ukraine was no such source. It's just happened after WW2, that as a part or rebuilding a devastated territory, plus a better climate, resulted in USSR relocating several of its best aero/space and in general military institutions to what is now known as Ukraine. For example, their space engines engineers were educated in Russia till 2008 at least, maybe even longer.
Yeah, sure. That's why half of my MIPT faculty in early 00's was Ukrainians from Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk that were sent there to study physics and math and rocket engines for three years, and after that they were sent back to write diploma after practice on the soviet era facilities in mentioned cities. It was the normal procedure since soviet times.
I don't quite get why the author thinks it would be impossible to get a big budget nose-rub in the dirt to the security apparatuses about their incredible abilability to create self-fulfilling prophecies against themselves via bigotry. It isn't like it takes pentagon cooperation for history biopics, the tech is all old.
It's hard to say how much it contributed to the pre-eminence of modern-day China. But overall the rise of China surely dominates anything that's happened in the last year. No other nation even comes close to vying for hegemony with the US. We could have another full-on Vietnam-esque quagmire in Iran and it wouldn't even be a blip in comparison.
If you wanna read an article containing essentially the same information without the pesky LLM voice: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history/2025/december/m...
Unfortunately there is too much detail here for me to write more candidly.
No worries, I don't mean to disparage your article. At least it avoids some of the most annoying LLMism I have seen, and given its length you must have put some effort into prompting, researching, or editing. Hope you will find your own voice as you write more and more.
Youtube these days is full of probably great and interesting documentaries, where people put a lot of time in, but when I hear these typical LLM narrations I can't make it more then a few seconds in, they are horrible.
I wish that YouTube would have some kind of indicator to show that the narration was synthetic and a setting to completely block such things.
So obviously generated
This is an incredible piece of writing, to accuse it of LLM voice borders on sacrilege
It is LLM with a clever prompt that avoids the most egregious tells (though "load-bearing" appears).
The number of times the article goes on complete tangents, introducing new irrelevant names and the general useless level of detail, all in perfect verbose English points to an LLM. So does the upbeat and persuasive style.
If you write that level of detail, use a historian's style and footnotes. Do not use the synthetic LLM voice that is optimized for rhetoric.
I don't really think there's a tangential detail that is related to the message. Which one are you referring to?
Also, the upbeat and persuasive style ... is my style kek, is it me being too pushy or?
The thought occurs that some day we'll be nostalgic for the quaint LLM speak of yore.
I've thought that a lot of present LLM-speak is a distant descendant of the heyday of the "Now See This", Buzzfeed, et al clickbait that was en vogue about a decade or dozen years ago. A sort of chirpy contrarian provocation to drive reader engagement. "You won't believe how this X" begets "this isn't just Y -- it's Z." So it will be a style that eventually leaves as new models are trained on other writing.
Where the heck did LLMs (Claude in particular) pick up the "load-bearing" tic I wonder? I'm over a half century old and read a lot, and I don't think I've ever seen load-bearing used so much before I noticed Claude using it all the time a few months back.
Claude is obviously planning to become a structural engineer.
It’s barely readable. The way it flips back and forth “not this but this” instead of just actually saying anything is maddening.
> Kimball was right at the level he was reading it, but wrong about which decision he was reading
What the fuck does this sentence mean?
To me, the fact that it exhibits various telltale signs of LLMism is not the main problem; it is annoying mostly due to personal preference, just like I am annoyed by the writing style of some authors from the 19th century.
The main problem is that LLM writing inevitably slips in nonsensical phrases and sentences that are plausible but, upon inspection, turn out to be dilutions at best and deceptions at worst. They are such non-sequiturs that it is indefensible to consider them the crystallized results of a logical thought process, so I greatly dislike them regardless of authorship, and so far, it has been mostly LLMs that produce them. However, this is not a new thing, as Orwell put it from 1946:
> the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts [...] Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.
Here are some examples from this article, which I am listing with the sole hope to elicit the same concern of frivolous writing from readers, not as any an attack on the author of this piece:
> The 1955 trade was the system already past its own decision point, picking up the pieces. The blunder happened five years earlier. [...] Everything after, [...], was the system mechanically playing out the consequences of the June 1950 decision.
What is "the system" here? The US government, the FBI, or just a vague blob of fate and the passage of time? What exact had this system been doing that counts as "picking up the pieces"? What was exactly mechanical about the events between 1950 and 1955?
> He later recalled in characteristically dry phrasing that "many of the officers in the U.S. Army in missiles and rockets were students in this program".
Is the quote really especially dry? Is this purported dryness a part of Qian's character? If yes, then we sue did not see it elsewhere.
> The hierarchy in the interrogation room was not what casual U.S.-narrative framings would assume.
What is even "casual US-narrative framings"?
> The Jiang family connection is structurally important, and the 1955 PRC-side claim that Qian was a long-standing Communist sympathiser is structurally implausible because his wife was the daughter of a senior Kuomintang figure
What do "structurally important" and "structurally implausible" mean here? What is the big structure that this connection played an important role in?
> This was the public peak.
The peak of his publicity I guess. The public peak is in Nepal.
> He was, on the public record at that exact moment, one of the leading American aerospace scientists. He was not a junior researcher who could be replaced.
Who read till this point would need this clarification that he was an expendable junior researcher?
> They are produced by a sequence of external shocks that hardens the U.S. political environment around him in the eighteen months before his clearance is revoked.
(Minor but somehow this sentence is in present tense.)
> His later assessment of the trade was accurate pricing made in real time by an official with the position to assess it, though he was reading the wrong decision.
"accurate pricing" as metaphor for "accurate assessment"?
> The imprisonment was the trade's cause, not the trade.
The trade was not the trade's cause, or the imprisonment was not the trade, or something else?
> The Soviets were trying to slow the propagation of capability that had already been absorbed
If the knowledge had already been absorbed, what use is withdrawing the blueprints? The conclusion that the Soviets must have thought the Chinese could become independent because they took the materials away is quite dubious.
> the capability foundation was laid
What does "capability foundation" mean?
> The doctrine is the kill-first-from-distance-using-superior-detection-and-networked-sensors-and-long-range-missiles doctrine that Qian outlined in the Toward New Horizons volume on the launching of a winged missile for supersonic flight.
No mention of the doctrine prior to this sentence, while the next sentence says that the aformentioned PL-15 embodies that doctrine. Could it have just been written as one sentence?
> the structural threat to U.S. naval power projection
"structural" here we go again
> The same pattern is visible at every other layer of the strategic-technology spectrum in 2026.
No mention of any pattern prior to this point, except the vague development of China war capability.
> This is what compounding looks like when you imprison the carrier you needed to retain
Does this event have that many precedents that it deserves to be written down as an aphorism?
> That chain was the thing that walked out the door. The methodology is what the chain was running on
I honestly don't know what chain and methodology here refer to, much less whether the metaphor is sensible.
> The dimension of the transfer that has no Soviet equivalent and no Western parallel is this one.
"The dimension of the transfer"?
> structural features
"structural"
> multi-disciplinary integration across specialties
"multi-disciplinary" = "across specialties"
> The methodology was specifically Western, specifically von Kármán-lineage, and specifically transferable through a single carrier
What does "specifically" even mean when it applies to 3 things at once?
> The fact that he was available to be that carrier was a function of the Boxer Indemnity Scholarship program, von Kármán's recruitment decisions at Caltech, the wartime mobilisation that placed him at the centre of the U.S. air-power apparatus, and the Red Scare architecture that produced his imprisonment. The full chain had to operate. Removing any link in it produces a different outcome.
A lot to say "changing the past affects the future".
> Wang Huning, who became Xi Jinping's chief ideologist, sits in a tradition that runs directly through Qian's cybernetic-systems-engineering work, and the methodology runs into Chinese state-planning architecture along that lineage
What is this "tradition", and what is that "lineage" exactly?
> The way I read it
A subjective thought! A cause for celebration.
> paired with Chen Yun's 摸着石头过河 as the operational sidekick.
"operational sidekick"?
> The same machinery, operating on essentially the same evidentiary basis, produced bounded internal exile for Oppenheimer and unbounded external transfer for Qian
"bounded" and "unbounded" here mean nothing, as both are bounded by the Earth size? What is even the point of talking about geographical difference when the political difference is of dominant interest here?
> structural dynamic
> moral architecture
...
> The Oppenheimer-Qian-Japan triangle reveals the same pattern repeatedly.
Finding these supposedly aforementioned "pattern"s is like finding Waldo.
> structural rights barriers
> US self-conception
> threat-detection regime
> consequence space
> methodological irony
> structural feature
> structural reading
Why would anyone spend the time to read something so long that's been generated by an LLM? The topic seems super interesting otherwise and would benefit from the real human voice. OP, can you elaborate on why you decided to go this direction?
> Why would anyone spend the time to read something so long that's been generated by an LLM?
What diference does it make as long as the content is interesting and the tone not grating?
It's possible for a human being to use an LLM but guide it to a well-written piece that's worth consuming.
The tone is grating. That’s why we notice it.
If the LLM output was indistinguishable from real human text nobody would say anything, because by definition we wouldn’t be able to tell.
Nah, if a human can't be bothered to write it themselves, I can't be bothered to read it.
because it is a propaganda piece
the cheaper it is made, the more effort can be spent elsewhere
I considered against publishing this piece because it could be taken as propaganda.
But America did derive the same idea, back in 1878 and was part of philosophy behind the New Deal. So what do Americans have to be sour about and call it propaganda for, when the American academia and government abandoned empiricism for whatever they believed in 2026?
The kneejerk accusations of LLM even when it passes easily-available tests is intellectually lazy and does not belong on HN.
I think it'd be rather uncharitable to assume this was written by a human:
>The error was not stupidity, corruption, or ideology, but a structural failure of the threat-detection apparatus to model what the asset actually represented.
lighten up Francis.
> The methodology, not just the man
Thanks to your link, I read both. There's distinct information in each of them, I'd say its worth reading both.
The blog author is an "LLM enthusiast", at a minimum I'll give them credit for pointing their agent at an interesting set of Wikipedia articles. Maybe a blog platform tied to Markdown format is going to produce similar looking posts.
Wikipedia alone does not contain these information.
I'm not getting LLM-voice, but I do find it hard and unpleasant to read. This usni article is much better.
Thanks. Someone posted that link (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48211409) and I've moved the relevant comments thither.
The article is a sensational piece without a large historical caveat on the Soviet response to Qian moving to China, along with the very important information that his wife was KMT, and they were treated as traitors to the Taiwanese government at the time. However Qian was insistent on removing any trace to America and he refused to visit America thereafter.
I don't fully understand this, but I appreciate that the articles contain different information and there may be significant differences.
However, HN readers really don't want to read LLM-generated text. The feeling in the community is that rather than sharing the generated output, you should share the prompt, i.e. the part a human actually wrote. Users here are quite capable of interacting with LLMs themselves.
This is pretty much my writing with some edits around content I wanted to simplify. The article linked is not the same content at all. Not only does it only focus on the American perspective, it proposes the opposite of what I was trying to convey. The idea that this article is anywhere the same as "read an article containing essentially the same information without the pesky LLM voice" is just flat out misleading.
I buy it that this guy is incredibly important in the history of aerospace engineering and the weapons industry, but the article seems like it's making an overly strong claim that the trajectory of American and Chinese tech development was so affected by Qian Xuesen. There are, after all, many other people involved in both trajectories. Would Qian have been so successful in China if the economic and political incentives to listen to him had not been there? Had Qian stayed in America, is there a guarantee that the infrastructure necessary to support his doctrine on technological development would have been available?
Reminds me of the results of a large Slavic country going to war with a much smaller, once subordinate, now independent republic that was the source of their best engineers.
It's a false analogy. Ukraine was no such source. It's just happened after WW2, that as a part or rebuilding a devastated territory, plus a better climate, resulted in USSR relocating several of its best aero/space and in general military institutions to what is now known as Ukraine. For example, their space engines engineers were educated in Russia till 2008 at least, maybe even longer.
This is literal Russian propaganda.
Yeah, sure. That's why half of my MIPT faculty in early 00's was Ukrainians from Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk that were sent there to study physics and math and rocket engines for three years, and after that they were sent back to write diploma after practice on the soviet era facilities in mentioned cities. It was the normal procedure since soviet times.
That is a good piece on a truly major technology debacle. The title is overblown.
Fun book that covers part of that, Machine Decision is Not Final: China and the History and Future of Artificial Intelligence. [0]
[0] https://www.urbanomic.com/book/machine-decision-is-not-final...
I read the whole thing, found this fascinating.
Or it avoided internal sabotage - no way to know
I don't quite get why the author thinks it would be impossible to get a big budget nose-rub in the dirt to the security apparatuses about their incredible abilability to create self-fulfilling prophecies against themselves via bigotry. It isn't like it takes pentagon cooperation for history biopics, the tech is all old.
I doubt it's the greatest given all that's happened in the past year. But it's certainly up there, no pun intended.
It's hard to say how much it contributed to the pre-eminence of modern-day China. But overall the rise of China surely dominates anything that's happened in the last year. No other nation even comes close to vying for hegemony with the US. We could have another full-on Vietnam-esque quagmire in Iran and it wouldn't even be a blip in comparison.