The biggest tell is that, most of the time, verbatim LLM output still doesn't actually make much sense if you read it carefully. Consider this excerpt from a RE

The biggest tell is that, most of the time, verbatim LLM output still doesn't actually make much sense if you read it carefully. Consider this excerpt from a README someone linked in the comments: > A compiler for the interface your agent already has: the shell. MCP makes an agent carry every tool's schema on every turn; declick compiles an API, an MCP server, or a database once into named verbs the model loads one at a time, and every verb returns one envelope with five exit codes. A team pushes a compiled adapter to a shared folder or git checkout once and every other machine pulls it. Ten engines, zero runtime dependencies, Node 24. What the hell would it even actually mean to have a "compiler for the shell"? How do you "compile" a database into a "named verb"? What would this mean? These notions don't meaningfully cohere together. Why exactly is an "envelope with five exit codes"? Are we getting all of the exit codes at once? That wouldn't make any sense. LLM writing is full of this kind of arbitrary collision of concepts that sound like they plausibly go together thanks to frequent co-occurrence but that have no coherent logical meaning when you apply even a modicum of critical scrutiny. This is why I find it astounding that anyone believes these things are "intelligent" and not still just fundamentally a matrix machine completing words.