There ought to be

There ought to be pots of gold at the end of rainbows, but there aren't.

I have written a rather long article on the methods I use to play Spot-A-Bot. I hesitate to post it (again) because there seem to be a lot of redditors (mods and mundanes alike) who would rather see a post taken down by subjective fiat than by following objective standards.

You should not just hesitate to post it, but hesitate to use it, for two reasons.

First, it's extremely doubtful that the techniques you've come up with are the result of anything other than confirmation bias, since you'd already have to know whether the content you're testing was or was not AI-generated in order to validate your test.

I suppose you could do an experiment by mixing lots of your own writing with your own AI-generated content, and then measure how well your tests work, but if you did that, you might just end up with tests that are only good at distinguishing your own writing from LLM output generated by your own prompts. The only way for this to work would be a large-scale study against many participants' curated data.

Second, any criteria that people use to distinguish LLMs is something that the LLMs themselves will adapt to -- training datasets will be updated, and prompts will be constructed to deliberately exclude those writing patterns from the output by the same people who are intentionally trying to use AI to create spam. So the more widespread adoption any particular method for detecting LLMs gains, the sooner it will stop working.