First, see below for Toll et al 2020 and I used autocorrect for grammar. Sorry you were dismissive before looking it up, is more a reflection of your bias.
Second, I noted all caveats with an LLM counting that - I actually presumed I undercounted, but it had been noted that a simple ctrl-f found 3.8 per page rather than 9.8 per page (counting only single emdashes not double). The actual number doesn’t matter so much, since low bound is absurd difference from baseline bills I checked from earlier this year and 2024, where they do not exist outside of the table of contents.
4.x emdashes per page (low bound) is absurd, and the implication of this is the point you (respectfully) missed.
And how do you know it wasn't just edited by someone who loves em-dashes?
comparing it to the average doesn't matter too much. Better evidence would be proving that there has never been a bill with anywhere close to the number of em-dashes used in this bill.
Yh I get your point - post is not necessarily designed to prove AI use (it's already highly probable, and not necessarily bad by itself in theory) it's the implications of it that are more interesting than deterministic evidence of it, but by showing evidence of it being likely - updated the post to reflect a better baseline.
“Overall, a more nuanced view of AI in government is necessary to create realistic expectations and mitigate risks (Toll et al., 2020)”
What a unique and human thought for a personal blogpost. Also who the fuck is Toll et al, there’s no bibliography.
Second the authors used Gemini to count em dashes. I know parsing PDF’s is not trivial but this is absurd.