The Seven Deadly Tells of AI Writing
There’s a new, confident tone spreading across the Internet. At first, it sounds insightful, but soon you realize it’s mostly empty prose dressed up with dramatic flair. This style—let’s call it the TED-talk style—is easy to spot once you know what to look for. It appears everywhere: press releases, social posts, even student essays.
This style tries to create engagement and drama with quick punchlines that almost sound insightful but fall short. While any writer might occasionally slip into these patterns, AI writing tends to use many of these “tells” at once, making the text feel formulaic.
Here are the main AI writing tells to watch for.
1. Contrastive Rhetorical Framing
- Examples like “So Amazon isn't just buying content. They're buying credibility.” or “This isn't just about revenue diversification. It's about survival.” are classic.
- This style sets up a contrast to create drama, but it often feels manufactured rather than natural.
2. Asking and Immediately Answering Rhetorical Questions
- Questions like “What changed? The math did.” or “Why? Because human credibility matters.” are used to inject drama.
- This technique is common in low-quality essays and now pervasive in AI outputs. It’s a red flag for forced engagement.
3. Overuse of Dashes
- AI tends to prefer dashes over commas: “The old model—hire more writers to chase more pageviews—is breaking down in real time.”
- Excessive dashes can interrupt flow and feel artificial—an easy way to spot AI-written text.
4. Triplet Framing
- Triplets like “Fast, cheap, and out of control.” or “Not for advertising. Not for distribution. For AI training.” add rhythm and a sense of authority.
- While not inherently bad, AI uses these compulsively, making writing feel mechanical.
5. The Inspirational Pivot
- This is when the writing suddenly shifts from specific to abstract to sound profound: “This isn’t just about AI. It’s about humanity.”
- It’s a common AI tactic to lift mundane topics into grand statements that don’t hold up under scrutiny.
6. Universal Authority Without Source
- Statements like “Studies show that storytelling is 22 times more memorable than facts.” appear authoritative but never cite actual studies.
- This tactic blurs opinion and fact, making readers accept claims without question.
7. Quotes Without Attribution
- Attributing quotes vaguely, e.g., “AI is the new electricity,” said Musk., without clear sources is common.
- AI sometimes fabricates quotes or misattributes them, a trap for readers who don’t verify.
Why do writers fall into these traps? Students often accept anything that sounds good as correct. Professionals sometimes get lazy, settling for AI-generated drafts without proper review. The result is content that feels polished but lacks real insight.
Since its launch, AI writing tools have struggled with long-winded, empty paragraphs. Recent updates have reduced the fluff but introduced this specific TED-talk style that spreads widely because AI models learn from each other’s outputs.
A good TED talk is fresh, engaging, and persuasive. Stripped of context, this style becomes a parody of itself—“sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Writers should train themselves to spot these tells and push for clarity and substance instead.
Your membership also unlocks:
