headline is clickbait. here’s the only thing it relies on:

According to new reporting by the BBC, photovoltaics will account for 10 percent of the world’s power generation by the end of 2026, a threshold which will see solar energy officially surpass nuclear fission.

Compared to nuclear energy generation — which has stayed largely flat over the past 26 years globally — the publication notes the volume of solar energy being generated has exploded, increasing some 2,700 times over across the same period.

so it’s saying that nuclear usage share is so low that solar will very soon generate more power than it, not that solar panels are now more efficient than nuclear

your

there’s a pretty big blue indicator to tell you which comments’ authors are OP and which ones are not

the field’s state-of-the-art-s have gotten a lot better at eliminating false positives over the past year: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/05/pangram-ai-detection-accuracy/687381/

the commenters seem legit

eicker links several websites in his bio, such as this one:

it scares me that 90% of Fediverse users do not recognize his obviously LLM writing.

also, can we talk about how Eicker’s website literally advertizes LLM social media marketing services? see third screenshot in body

and for that matter, looking into it, Pangram seems to have an extremely low false-positive rate these days: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/05/pangram-ai-detection-accuracy/687381/ . the only complaints seem to be about its false negative rate. the FP rate of 1 in 10,000 is maybe higher than you want but whatever of Eicker’s text you throw at it it always comes up positive.

the em dash is just one tick. eicker has at least five of those to the point where it’s embedded into the logical flow of the argument and the sentence structure

interesting, I always thought the placement of UI/UX meant UX had to be closely related. i mean it still is closely related to UI but it’s less closely-related than I thought

they always end the comment with some sort of wry contrast.

I do not consider this kind of preaching to the choir constructive at all: it oversimplifies any nuance in articles posted into building the echo chamber. what’s constructive for discussion should be what challenges!

The third screenshot is me asking if it was written by AI and not receiving a reply. The user pretty much does not reply to people, just obviously-LLM summaries to his own posts. Almost all such comments are the same amount of lines. I used the first result for an LLM detector just to give a number; Eicker’s language always ticks the “this is LLM” neurons to me.

that’s not UX

i think this runs the same problem of how search engines adopting AI summaries are starving their sources of traffic

wait how would that work? don’t LG TVs use a random CA that likely isn’t eMurdha?

that’s a very long way to spell the random number 4