It either changes it completely or not at all, a tragic sort of syntactic ambiguity. Though, from the first few lines of the archived article someone else posted,
"We might some day have “AI Safety”, as a science or policy area, that is not primarily a sex cult in Berkeley, California, but it does not currently exist"
So in this case, "in Berkeley" does not change the meaning.
If I had more time I'd write a shorter letter, a la Pascal.
Editing is generally hard work, at the current token price I don't mind spending multiple passes of high effort to get down to a reasonable noise/signal ratio. I've seen some people pass off output to a weaker/cheaper model but that makes me a bit nervous when I don't have intimate knowledge of the subject.
I'll push back a tiny bit, though I agree that we ought not change how we write on the basis of AI-isms, and if I would always prefer something poorly written that a human has thought through than something perfect but vacuous.
The em-dash is great for a lot of things like to avoid comma splicing or to indicate a parenthetical remark, but is usually superfluous. The subject of "correct" writing can be a bit touch and go of course, but as a reader I really never want to deal with a writer using an em-dash to mimic how they would say something verbally, the dramatic pause into the punchline of the sentence pattern (personal opinion) sucks.
A human author (well, an honest author) will try to talk through things and arrive at some point. What bugs me about AI generation is that it’s always simply a complication that grows out of a seed. “It’s not (complicated thing) — it’s (other thing)”, etc. The dash is just nodes it sprinkles around and then pops out more complexity from.
Considering Weber was publishing give or take a century ago, it not being state of the art isn't surprising. It's still influential because it established a lot of the tools used by modern sociologists, as well as providing a counterpoint to Marxist thought. Personally I'm mostly indifferent to the claim.
You're also misreading the claim, the Protestant work ethic is not claiming any virtue on anyone's behalf. Weber's claim is making a casual connection between the development of capitalism and religious covenant. It's certainly not the prescriptive theory you're making it out to be.
"We might some day have “AI Safety”, as a science or policy area, that is not primarily a sex cult in Berkeley, California, but it does not currently exist"
So in this case, "in Berkeley" does not change the meaning.