Not obviously not Language Model. Sometimes we get posts or comments that where it's not clearly human generated. 

LLM content is generally not good enough for LessWrong, and in particular we don't want it from new users who haven't demonstrated a more general track record of good content.  See our current policy on LLM content. 

We caution that LLMs tend to agree with you regardless of what you're saying, and don't have good enough judgment to evaluate content. If you're talking extensively with LLMs to develop your ideas (especially if you're talking about philosophy, physics, or AI) and you've been rejected here, you are most likely not going to get approved on LessWrong on those topics. You could read the Sequences Highlights to catch up the site basics, and if you try submitting again, focus on much narrower topics.

If your post/comment was not generated by an LLM and you think the rejection was a mistake, message us on intercom to convince us you're a real person. We may or may not allow the particular content you were trying to post, depending on circumstances.

We are sorry about this, but submissions from new users that are mostly just links to papers on open repositories (or similar) have usually indicated either crackpot-esque material, or AI-generated speculation. It's possible that this one is totally fine. Unfortunately, part of the trouble with separating valuable from confused speculative science or philosophy is that the ideas are quite complicated, accurately identifying whether they have flaws is very time intensive, and we don't have time to do that for every new user presenting a speculative theory or framing (which are usually wrong).

Separately, LessWrong users are also quite unlikely to follow such links to read the content without other indications that it would be worth their time (like being familiar with the author), so this format of submission is pretty strongly discouraged without at least a brief summary or set of excerpts that would motivate a reader to read the full thing.