Wikipedia published a great article with key features of text AI

And yes, there's one in there about the long dash too (-)

The whole article is divided into subsections with examples, specific chatbot parasite words, and other signs of AI text. I recommend to read it at the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing. In short, here's what WIKI recommends you pay attention to when working with AI text:

Content:

1. Overemphasis on symbolism, heritage and importance
2. Overemphasis on fame, attribution and media coverage
3. Surface analysis
4. Advertising language
5. Didactic, editorial reservations
6. Summary of sections
7. Conclusions in the form of a chart on problems and future prospects
8. Wikipedia lists or common article titles as proper names

Language and grammar:

1. Frequently used words from the «artificial intelligence dictionary»
2. Negative parallelisms
3. The outlines of the negatives
4. Rule of three
5. Vague attributions of opinion
6. Elegant variation
7. False ranges

Style:

1. Capitalization
2. Excessive use of bold type
3. Vertical lists with embedded headings
4. Emoji
5. Abuse of long dashes
6. Figurative quotation marks and apostrophes
7. Post topics

A message intended for the user:

1. Joint communication
2. Disclaimer on limited information and assumptions about gaps in sources
3. Immediate rejection
4. Phrase patterns and placeholder text

Markup:

1. Using Markdown
2. Broken wikitext
3. turn0search0
4. contentReference, oaicite, oai_citation, attached_file
5. Attribution and attributableIndex
6. Non-existent or irrelevant categories and «see also» pages»

Quotes:

1. Broken external links
2. Invalid DOIs and ISBNs
3. Improper or unconventional use of references
4. Links (utm_source=)
5. Named references declared in the references section but not used in the text of the article

Miscellaneous:

1. Abrupt breaks
2. Differences in writing style and English language variants
3. The age of the text relative to the launch of ChatGPT
4. Overwhelmingly detailed summaries of the edits
5. «Submission Statements» in AFC projects
6. AFC review templates rejected earlier

Ineffective Indicators:

1. Impeccable grammar
2. «Tasteless» or «robotic» prose
3. «Sophisticated,» «academic,» or unusual words.
4. A letter that looks like a letter
5. Unions
6. Unusual wikitext