Race S2 -> release?

elbee

@raven said:

@dreamer_ said:

Was this written by an AI LLM?

According to to chatgpt:

Yes, it could very well have been written by an LLM, but it’s impossible to determine that with certainty. There are several characteristics that make it look AI-generated.

Signs that point toward an LLM

Overly confident conclusions. The text starts cautiously (“I think,” “potential,” “rumors”) but ends with a very strong conclusion: “Everything points to…”. This is a common pattern in LLM-generated writing, where nuance gradually gives way to confidence.
Plausible but speculative reasoning. The three arguments are reasonable, but none of them constitutes direct evidence. Despite that, the conclusion is presented as though it is almost certain.
Generic, polished phrasing. Expressions such as:
- “a classic sign of an imminent generational handover”
- “setting the stage with the software for the new generation”
- “just around the corner”
  read smoothly but are fairly generic and don’t add much concrete information.
Highly structured format. The numbered list followed by a concise summary is exactly the kind of organization that LLMs tend to produce.

What makes me particularly skeptical?

Some statements are presented as facts without any supporting evidence:

“Suunto is currently trying to optimize the code to manage the RAM on the original Race and Race S for a potential August release.”

This sounds authoritative, but without a source it’s difficult to verify. A human writer discussing rumors would typically explain where this information came from.

Likewise:

“Suunto previously followed this exact pattern with the original Race when they introduced the Race 2.”

This is a specific historical claim. If it isn’t accurate or cannot be substantiated, it’s the kind of detail an LLM may confidently generate based on an assumed pattern.

How would an experienced human writer likely phrase it?

A technology journalist would typically:

cite the sources behind each claim;
clearly separate verified facts from speculation;
avoid drawing strong conclusions from circumstantial evidence.

For example:

“These signs could indicate that a successor is nearing release, although Suunto has not announced any new hardware and the available evidence remains circumstantial.”

Conclusion

My assessment would be:

Likelihood that this was primarily written by an LLM: approximately 75–90%.
Likelihood that it was written by a human with LLM assistance (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini): even higher.
Likelihood that it was written entirely by a human: certainly possible, but I would consider it less likely.

Based on writing style alone, it is impossible to conclude with certainty that an LLM was used. However, the combination of a highly structured presentation, polished but generic language, and a confident conclusion drawn from speculative evidence makes LLM assistance seem quite likely.

aiv4r

@raven 100%. So many words without actual value and based on completely random facts.

atoponce

The Reddit leaks (June-July)
The anonymous rumors on Reddit are not far off. Although June and July are wrapping up without an official hardware announcement, the brand has been entirely focused on the Q2 firmware launch.

r/Suunto mod here. There are no leaks about a Race 2S. Only a handful of posts asking about it, and a few more comments discussing probabilities, including one comment about someone who chatted with a Suunto salesman. No leaks.

There was a Core 2 leak that came through the moderation log a few days before the Core 2 officially landed. It was hosted on Google Drive, but Reddit filtered the post and suspended the account before it could reach the sub.

dreamer_

@elbee said:

@raven said:

@dreamer_ said:

Was this written by an AI LLM?

According to to chatgpt:

Yes, it could very well have been written by an LLM, but it’s impossible to determine that with certainty. There are several characteristics that make it look AI-generated.

Signs that point toward an LLM

Overly confident conclusions. The text starts cautiously (“I think,” “potential,” “rumors”) but ends with a very strong conclusion: “Everything points to…”. This is a common pattern in LLM-generated writing, where nuance gradually gives way to confidence.

Plausible but speculative reasoning. The three arguments are reasonable, but none of them constitutes direct evidence. Despite that, the conclusion is presented as though it is almost certain.

Generic, polished phrasing. Expressions such as:

“a classic sign of an imminent generational handover”

“setting the stage with the software for the new generation”

“just around the corner”
read smoothly but are fairly generic and don’t add much concrete information.

Highly structured format. The numbered list followed by a concise summary is exactly the kind of organization that LLMs tend to produce.

What makes me particularly skeptical?

Some statements are presented as facts without any supporting evidence:

“Suunto is currently trying to optimize the code to manage the RAM on the original Race and Race S for a potential August release.”

This sounds authoritative, but without a source it’s difficult to verify. A human writer discussing rumors would typically explain where this information came from.

Likewise:

“Suunto previously followed this exact pattern with the original Race when they introduced the Race 2.”

This is a specific historical claim. If it isn’t accurate or cannot be substantiated, it’s the kind of detail an LLM may confidently generate based on an assumed pattern.

How would an experienced human writer likely phrase it?

A technology journalist would typically:

cite the sources behind each claim;

clearly separate verified facts from speculation;

avoid drawing strong conclusions from circumstantial evidence.

For example:

“These signs could indicate that a successor is nearing release, although Suunto has not announced any new hardware and the available evidence remains circumstantial.”

Conclusion

My assessment would be:

Likelihood that this was primarily written by an LLM: approximately 75–90%.

Likelihood that it was written by a human with LLM assistance (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini): even higher.

Likelihood that it was written entirely by a human: certainly possible, but I would consider it less likely.

Based on writing style alone, it is impossible to conclude with certainty that an LLM was used. However, the combination of a highly structured presentation, polished but generic language, and a confident conclusion drawn from speculative evidence makes LLM assistance seem quite likely.

No. The ONLY thing is just the formatting and that’s only because english is not my native language. Re-reading I see it sounds like written for a bot.
But AIs are not that clever. The 3 points is just what I think and in my opinion it is very clear that something is happening (highly discounted previous generation (which is 2 years old), no Q2 for the Race S and that (anonymous user) comment in reddit ).

But nothing real, no leaks. Sorry for the formatting mistake guys.

Egika

no leaks maybe because there is no Race 2s coming…

raven

@dreamer_ If the earlier post was your own work, then please reveal the sourcing for this:

“ While industry experts note that Suunto is currently trying to optimize the code to manage the RAM on the original Race and Race S for a potential August release, prioritizing ‘second-generation’ models is a classic sign of an imminent generational handover.”

Where was this August release mentioned, for example? Which “industry experts” made note of it?

dreamer_

@raven said:

@dreamer_ If the earlier post was your own work, then please reveal the sourcing for this:

“ While industry experts note that Suunto is currently trying to optimize the code to manage the RAM on the original Race and Race S for a potential August release, prioritizing ‘second-generation’ models is a classic sign of an imminent generational handover.”

Where was this August release mentioned, for example? Which “industry experts” made note of it?

I very likely mixed the issues we heard about the hardware resources and the Q1/Vertical 1 and what it was commented about previous generation watches and assumed Race/S now with Q2.

Fixed and sorry guys. I’ll be more careful with these kind of things.

raven

The reality is we don’t really know anything about what may happen. It’s possible we will see a Race 2 S shortly, but we may not see it at all.

Suunto never made a “Vertical S” nor a “Run S,” and perhaps the Race S did not do as well as they hoped and it will be a one off. Or they may announce a full on “S series” all at once, Vertical 2 S and Race 2 S simultaneously.

As a Race S owner, if there are no future smaller sized watches, that would sadden me as I’m not a fan of the larger sizes for all day wear. If Suunto made a screenless band like the Garmin Cirqa, Polar Loop, Fitbit Air, etc. then I can see a setup where I had a larger watch for workouts and a screenless band for rest of day and sleep, but I doubt that will happen.

Egika

@raven said:

The reality is we don’t really know anything about what may happen. It’s possible we will see a Race 2 S shortly, but we may not see it at all.

Suunto never made a “Vertical S” nor a “Run S,” and perhaps the Race S did not do as well as they hoped and it will be a one off. Or they may announce a full on “S series” all at once, Vertical 2 S and Race 2 S simultaneously.

…or something else…

Highlands

@Egika That’s an elegant hint. Thanks

raven

@Egika said:

@raven said:

The reality is we don’t really know anything about what may happen. It’s possible we will see a Race 2 S shortly, but we may not see it at all.

Suunto never made a “Vertical S” nor a “Run S,” and perhaps the Race S did not do as well as they hoped and it will be a one off. Or they may announce a full on “S series” all at once, Vertical 2 S and Race 2 S simultaneously.

…or something else…

Certainly, I didn’t mean to imply those were the only options. I think a new named smaller sized watch would make a lot of sense.

VoiGAS

@raven 9 Peak Pro Ultra!