It's a bit more subtle than things like "it's not X, it's Y". And even that isn't "wrong", it's just the way AI talks, and therefore an indicator that the author offloaded their thinking to an agent. I've read so much Claude output that it's easy for me to recognize its voice, the same way I could recognize a friend's voice in writing. The examples I quoted are a weird kind of circuitous sentence structure with a certain shape and rhythm that scream Claude to me. Here is how I might rewrite them in human speak:

> Most of the path is automated; a person's attention goes where the risk is

--> We automate as much as possible, focusing human attention on risky parts

> The eval grows with every incident, and every change to the reviewer is scored against all of it.

--> We run reviewer evals against every incident

But that's just my interpretation and my voice. I can't know for sure what the authors would have said if they took the time to write it themselves.

Personally, a year or two ago writing like that did not really come across as particular bad or AI generated to me, although it was uncommon for humans to write phrases like that. Writing in an unusual way is not inherently bad, it can make your text interesting... but it is less direct and clear than alternatives. But the style becomes unpleasant if you keep seeing the same patterns over and over such as "X'ed against all of it"

It feels like it's trying to sell you something in every sentence.