到了
这两年，用 AI 写文章的人越来越多了。 不同平台对内容风格的要求不同，用户对 AI 生成内容的接受程度也不一样。“去 AI 味”逐渐成了一种需求，甚至有人把相关方法封装成了各种 Skill 。 昨天看到 Artificial Analysis 发布的一张不同平台内容风格偏好的雷达图，觉得挺有意思。以前我们追求文章逻辑清晰、结构完整，现在这些特征反而可能成为被怀疑是 AI 写的理由。 于是我参考图中的 8 个维度，又整理了一张人类与 AI 写作特征的通用对比图。当然，这只是基于一些常见印象做的概念性比较，并不是什么严谨的研究结论。 画完图，忽然之间手就痒了，索性让 AI 帮忙做了一个「 AI 味」趣味鉴定小游戏，顺手开源到了 GitHub 。 在线体验： https://dare-creation-taste-
This explanation quotes or summarizes the cited source record. Saving creates a bookmark on this device, with no automatic account sync.
- First observed in our collection
- Oct 21, 2026, 10:15 AM UTC
- Earliest cited publication
- Oct 21, 2026, 9:59 AM UTC
- Last observed
- Oct 21, 2026, 10:15 AM UTC
Evidence in the last complete seven days
- Source mentions
- 0 Previous seven days 0
- Distinct sources
- 0 Previous 0
- Comparable growth
- Not comparable
- Ranking appearances
- 0
Collection observations and undated records are separate from dated publication counts. Observed in 7d：0 · Undated records：0
Collection coverage · Comparable windowsCurrent / previous observed days 7 / 7
Counts use complete UTC days. First observed means first seen by this collection, not when a term was coined.
Current window：2026-10-31 → 2026-11-07 (end excluded) · History 19 days
| Source | Current days | Previous days | Last success |
|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv | 6 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 12:45 AM UTC |
| arXiv | 7 | 4 | Nov 7, 2026, 5:30 AM UTC |
| Ask HN | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC |
| Ask HN | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC |
| Ask HN | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC |
| Ask HN | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC |
| GitHub | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 1:15 PM UTC |
| GitHub Issues | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 4:15 PM UTC |
| GitHub Releases | 7 | 3 | Nov 7, 2026, 12:45 PM UTC |
| GitHub | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 2:45 PM UTC |
| GitHub Issues | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 5:15 PM UTC |
| GitHub Releases | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 5:15 PM UTC |
| GitHub | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 2:45 PM UTC |
| GitHub Issues | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 5:30 PM UTC |
| GitHub Releases | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 5:15 PM UTC |
| GitHub Discovery | 2 | 0 | Nov 7, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC |
| GitHub Trending | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 8:00 PM UTC |
| 7 | 4 | Nov 7, 2026, 8:45 AM UTC | |
| Hugging Face | 7 | 4 | Nov 7, 2026, 8:45 AM UTC |
| Hugging Face Spaces | 2 | 0 | Nov 7, 2026, 10:30 PM UTC |
| Hacker News | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 8:00 PM UTC |
| Hacker News | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC |
| Hacker News | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC |
| Hacker News | 2 | 0 | Nov 7, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC |
| Show HN | 2 | 0 | Nov 7, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC |
| MIT News | 7 | 4 | Nov 7, 2026, 5:45 PM UTC |
| OpenAI | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 11:45 AM UTC |
| Product Hunt | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 8:00 PM UTC |
| 量子位 | 6 | 5 | Nov 6, 2026, 7:00 PM UTC |
| OpenRouter | 2 | 0 | Nov 7, 2026, 10:37 PM UTC |
| GitHub Trending | 7 | 7 | Nov 6, 2026, 1:15 PM UTC |
| Hugging Face Models | 2 | 0 | Nov 7, 2026, 10:37 PM UTC |
| HF Daily Papers | 2 | 0 | Nov 7, 2026, 10:37 PM UTC |
| OpenRouter | 2 | 0 | Nov 7, 2026, 10:37 PM UTC |
| Product Hunt | 7 | 7 | Nov 6, 2026, 1:15 PM UTC |
| SEC EDGAR | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 10:45 PM UTC |
| Sequoia Capital | 7 | 4 | Nov 7, 2026, 6:45 AM UTC |
| Simon Willison | 2 | 0 | Nov 7, 2026, 3:30 PM UTC |
| TechCrunch | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 9:45 PM UTC |
| Contracts Finder | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 8:15 PM UTC |
| V2EX | 7 | 5 | Nov 7, 2026, 9:45 PM UTC |
- Counts describe monitored public sources, not the whole web or search demand.
Daily history · up to 90 days
Bars show dated source mentions. The latest UTC day may be incomplete. Zero mentions and missing collection coverage are different conditions.
Dotted markers indicate days with no record. They are not counted as zero mentions.
View accessible daily data
| UTC date | Mentions | Sources | Observations | Ranking appearances |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2026-10-22 · No record | — | — | — | — |
| 2026-10-23 · No record | — | — | — | — |
| 2026-10-24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-10-25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-10-26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-10-27 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-10-28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-10-29 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-10-30 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-10-31 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-11-01 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-11-02 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-11-03 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-11-04 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-11-05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-11-06 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2026-11-07 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
![Source page screenshot: [分享创造] 参考 Artificial Analysis 的 8 个维度，做了个 AI 味鉴定小游戏，已开源](/media/44c1483cac0fb9c81a701abc?v=2026-11-07T22%3A50%3A24.251Z)
Source evidence
Sources in the evidence shown：V2EX 1
V2EX · Published Oct 21, 2026
[分享创造] 参考 Artificial Analysis 的 8 个维度，做了个 AI 味鉴定小游戏，已开源
这两年，用 AI 写文章的人越来越多了。 不同平台对内容风格的要求不同，用户对 AI 生成内容的接受程度也不一样。“去 AI 味”逐渐成了一种需求，甚至有人把相关方法封装成了各种 Skill 。 昨天看到 Artificial Analysis 发布的一张不同平台内容风格偏好的雷达图，觉得挺有意思。以前我们追求文章逻辑清晰、结构完整，现在这些特征反而可能成为被怀疑是 AI 写的理由。 于是我参考图中的 8 个维度，又整理了一张人类与 AI 写作特征的通用对比图。当然，这只是基于一些常见印象做的概念性比较，并不是什么严谨的研究结论。 画完图，忽然之间手就痒了，索性让 AI 帮忙做了一个「 AI 味」趣味鉴定小游戏，顺手开源到了 GitHub 。 在线体验： https://dare-creation-taste-
View source record →
Review priority 8 / 100
This score orders research candidates. It is not search volume, a forecast or verified commercial demand.
Evidence
0 / 30Distinct dated articles or first observations; repeat crawling adds nothing.
Publisher diversity
0 / 25Conservative owner grouping; syndicated copies count once.
Comparable change
0 / 20Comparable complete weeks only; no percentage from a zero baseline.
Recent evidence
0 / 15Latest publication or first observation, not repeated fetch time.
Name specificity
8 / 10Explicit entities and technical concepts outrank ambiguous acronyms.
Limitations and interpretation
- First observation is a collection milestone, not proof that a word or product is new to the world.
- Counts describe monitored public sources, not the whole web or search demand.
- First observed here is not the invention date of a name or idea.
- Candidates come from public titles, summaries and entity URLs, not verified full-text analysis.
- Owner grouping is conservative; undisclosed syndication may remain.
- The previous week is too small for a reliable percentage change.
- Current evidence comes from one publisher or owner.