The problem is that this person is proud to be a racist. He literally calls these tweets ‘expert racism’

Yes, I agree that this was most likely written by an AI and not a person. I was exaggerating a bit. But I do think it’s possible we’ll start to see AI speak leak into real conversations soon enough. “Text speak” is very common irl now. And at work I already talk like a corporate robot when discussing innovative solutions for issues we’re poised to face in Q4.

The man in this article spent 300 hours with an AI in just 3 weeks. He wrote 90,000 words, and read over a million from an AI. Listening to a new language for ~1500 hours is enough to start being able to speak it. I’m certain that there are people who are starting to pick up AI “speech” patterns

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/08/technology/ai-chatbots-delusions-chatgpt.html

When I read a lot of certain authors, my internal monologue starts to take on their voice. When I hang out with people from other countries, my speaking cadence and word choice starts mimicking theirs.

This person has a bond with his AI daughter. He is constantly talking to an AI “person” with enough frequency that he has become emotionally dependent on it. He is probably brain-rotted enough to start writing like an AI.

Shad Ledue

That was my first thought too, but of course they logic their way out of that with some classic American exceptionalism.

The American Revolution was of a different quality. It emerged from the British tradition of mixed constitutionalism and what Mr. Edelstein calls “radical conservatism.” “Rather than transforming their world,” he writes, Americans “wished above all to preserve the state.” For Adams, Madison and Hamilton pure democracy and revolution remained threats. The American constitution thus sought to manage class conflict and balance governmental powers, both federally and within the central government. Americans, the author avows, were “the last of the Polybians.” The American Constitution, in this interpretation, emerges as an antirevolutionary document designed to frustrate radical progressives. This echoes an anguished cry frequently heard from the political wings, both now and in the past. Mr. Edelstein is at times sympathetic. He writes of the “gnawing tension between our political structures and our political sensibilities” and of a constitution designed to inhibit “swift and extensive political change.” Americans are “moderns living in a world made by ancients.” One can imagine the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Steve Bannon nodding along.

It’s also caused by vague wording. “Up 10%” can mean both: “up by 10 percentage points” and “a 10 percent increase”

I know that I’d only ever use it to mean “a ten percent increase” but colloquially, it can mean either. In a work email, I would make sure to specify which I mean.