I did a bit of a dive on it, and its fascinating. Its a "bias" in a sense, but its apparently a cognitive pattern of "source monitoring."

I don't exactly know how that works, because I don't think "is this artifact computer generated?" Instead, I see all digital information as computer generated. The text you type isnt linked to you as a person. It's linked to the screen on which I read it from. Which is then linked to software and networking, and another computer, a keyboard (or AI!) and eventually you.

This allows other knowledge of mine to create another layer - I know machines literally don't know anything (as an electronic/computer engineer, you kinda get that at a core level). So, by default, I just take everything I consume digitally with a grain of salt.

But it goes further than that. I really don't "learn well" unless I do the thing I'm learning and can explain it to others. So, if a "new things" deviates from existing knowledge, I need to find how either my existing knowledge is flawed, or the authority of the actual original source, which is never a computer screen, and rarely a person. (I've been told this is considered by many to be very taxing and burdensome and they're right, but it works for me).

Because I have this source monitoring pattern, inherent bias against digital information, a taxing learning preference, AND pre-existing knowledge on how LLMs work, I just find the patterns in the AI generation quickly. As they advance, it could potentially circumvent my cognitive pattern, but it won't be in a way I can predict.