Even if it is, it does not have all the annoying, low effort slop-tells most ai generated content has, and it is definitely much more well written. That is, if you mean all of that seriously anyway.
I think it is a very good post, esp for 2026 tech space standards. If some parts of it bothered you as AI slop, please share. Usually I can point to several sentences that are clear tells when I read sth as slop.
"A transcript should contain the instructions, messages, tool calls and tool results. Another sufficiently capable model might not continue identically, but it could understand what happened and take over."
This is so obviously AI generated it is painful. Once or twice in an article is rhetorical flourish, but the entire text is inundated with it.
I would never write such a low information, generic, sentence to begin with.
AI writing is rife with high-level, generic language. AI prose rarely addresses concrete concerns, instead preferring hedged generalizations. The "It may A, B, and C, but it will not X, Y, and Z." Where both lists are broad categories instead of specific mechanisms is a calling-card of AI prose.
A human identifies and addresses specific concerns. They need not hedge with "may", because they are stating known facts to support their premise, and an argument from those facts follows naturally.
"The OpenAI API requires tokenization in proprietary format, unavailable and unusable by other providers. Deepseek and Anthropic are following suit."
I do not think the whole article is AI generated. I do not think this was a simple prompt of "Write an article about proprietary chat session formats". However, much of the rhetoric is either LLM drafted or had an LLM pass over it.
