to be honest it's hard to describe this overexplained apology that LLMs give. I regularly use claude through duck.ai, and I have to agree with him, the writing style and words used is way too familiar.

"you're right to raise this" is an LLMism on the same level as "You're exactly right!"

Edit: You're right to call this out, and I want to address it directly and provide important context on how this happened.

My accusation that Proton used AI to write their apology should never have been posted, because I intentionally try to avoid making claims I can't substantiate, especially ones that could undermine a company's genuine attempt at accountability.

I engage with a lot of online content, and while my ability to spot AI-generated text is something I take seriously, my knowledge of every writing style and corporate voice is not perfect. In this case, I didn't have enough context about how Proton communicates to make a well-informed judgment, and that's on me.

I also want to be straight about what an accusation like this is and isn't. Pointing out polished writing is an observation, not evidence. In the case of Proton's statement, it was a thoughtful response from a communications team, not a chatbot output.

But that distinction doesn't excuse what I said. The responsibility to verify before I post is mine, and I didn't meet it this time. I'm now reviewing how I evaluate content before making public claims to ensure this doesn't happen again.

If you see me do something like this again, call it out. I rely on that feedback.