Runchey Research | Multi-LLM Analysis Platform

After running hundreds of analyses through multiple LLMs, you start to notice patterns. Not in the content — in the rhetoric. Certain phrases, certain structures, certain ways of presenting information that feel distinctly... LLM-ish.

Why This Matters

LLM-isms aren't inherently wrong, but they often correlate with shallow reasoning. When you spot one, it's a signal to dig deeper — the model may be pattern-matching rather than actually reasoning about the problem.

The "This Isn't X — It's Y" Pattern

One of the most common LLM-isms is the dramatic reframe. The model presents two concepts as if they're opposites, when really they're describing the same thing from different angles.

Gemini

"This isn't a retargeting company — it's a Commerce Media platform."

🚩 Flag: Both descriptions can be true simultaneously. The dramatic 'reframe' often signals the model is reaching for narrative punch rather than analytical precision.

GPT

"Chord isn't drilling wells — they're manufacturing precision-engineered hydrocarbon extraction systems."

🚩 Flag: This is the same activity described with more syllables. Beware 'upgrades' that add complexity without adding information.

Skepticism Trigger

When an LLM uses "This isn't X — it's Y," ask yourself: Are X and Y actually mutually exclusive? If not, the reframe may be rhetorical flourish masking a lack of substantive insight.

The "Three Pillars" Structure

LLMs love to organize things into tidy groups of three. Three reasons, three pillars, three factors. This isn't wrong — humans like threes too — but it can lead to Procrustean reasoning.

The "Nuanced Reality" Hedge

Another common pattern: the model presents both sides of an argument, then concludes that "the reality is nuanced" without actually taking a position.

Claude

"Bulls argue the valuation is cheap, while bears point to declining fundamentals. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between."

🚩 Flag: This is a non-answer. The truth doesn't 'always' lie in between — sometimes one side is just wrong. Demand a specific assessment.

How to Push Past This

When an LLM gives you "it's nuanced," follow up with: "If you had to bet your own money, which way would you lean and why?" This often forces a more concrete answer.

More LLM-isms to Watch For

"It's worth noting that..."

Often introduces information the model feels obligated to include but can't integrate into its main argument. May be important — or may be filler.

"While X is true, it's important to consider Y"

Classic hedge structure. Fine in moderation, but if every paragraph starts this way, the model may be avoiding commitment.

"This represents a paradigm shift"

Buzzword alert. Real paradigm shifts are rare. Most "transformations" are incremental improvements dressed up with dramatic language.

"Interestingly..."

The model is about to tell you something it thinks you'll find interesting. Sometimes it is; sometimes it's just transitional filler.

The Meta-Lesson

LLM-isms aren't bugs — they're features of how these models were trained. They learned to write by absorbing billions of words of human text, including all our rhetorical tricks and lazy patterns.

The point isn't to dismiss everything an LLM says when you spot a pattern. It's to calibrate your skepticism. When the rhetoric is doing heavy lifting, ask yourself: Is there substance underneath, or just style?

A Useful Heuristic

If you removed all the "LLM-isms" from a response, would there still be a concrete claim you could verify or falsify? If not, the response may be more vibes than analysis.

Meta-note: Yes, the irony is not lost on us that this blog post was written with the help of LLMs. We've tried to catch our own LLM-isms, but we probably missed some. If you spot one, congratulations — your skepticism is well-calibrated.