When Writing Stinks of AI

A necessary counterbalance to an increasingly polished digital world. A messy, Raw, Authentic, Human approach.

I recently read an essay posted on Substack that had been published in Elle Magazine. It was good, really good… for about 3-4 paragraphs. As I read further, the work began to develop a scent, the reek of AI. The further I got into it, the suspicious consistency, over use of Em (—) Dashes distracted my focus. My inner Columbo was searching for clues of fraud, inauthenticity, for you Chat!

Although, it was a wonderful piece. It conjured images, stirred emotion, I was sucked into the story. At a certain point, the stink of AI was too much, all credibility was off. I dismissed the piece and closed the tab.

It is interesting to read an article, newsletter or some written work nowadays sprinkled with the evidence of AI. One may notice the constant use of Em dashes “—“, overly balanced, repetitive phrasing, generic statements, perfect grammar, linear, predictable structure, a sterile or benign feel. I find AI written material akin to AI generated images or music, almost convincing, but something just isn’t quite right.

Deep down, don’t you get the feeling AI content is somehow trying to trick you?

While writing, I often find myself in some spot in either the creative process or the production and posting process. When unable to find a way out, I have dabbled by dropping a question, or even a sample of work into Chat, just to see what comes back. At first, the Chat responses were amazing! It felt as though I had discovered the ultimate co-creator, mentor, critic, editor and know-all resource.

It didn’t take long to discover the pitfalls and limits of this new-ish technology.

At first, I had a list of “wants” that I needed resolved, how do I better format a sentence, line up and organize a string of thoughts, or how to edit for better grammar and clarity, etc.

What I found was that AI can certainly do all that and more in a matter of seconds. The problem is that the edited material is just not quite right. I end up spending more time rewriting and editing the editor.

Messy, Raw, Authentic, Human approach - A necessary counterbalance to an increasingly polished digital world

My style of writing is rather raw and often messy. Chat will tidy it up, and in the process, dilute the intention and logic then create a predictable cadence and flow. The original concept becomes diluted, hard to track, too sterile, or just pointed in the wrong direction entirely.

Example:

(Chat’s edited version):
My writing style is intentionally raw, crafted to deliver authentic, unfiltered insights. When AI intervenes to refine and optimize — improving clarity, flow, and readability — it inevitably smooths away the unique edges that give my work its character. The result is polished, professional, and highly shareable, but it reads like standardized content designed to please algorithms rather than people. The core message remains intact, yet the emotional impact and creative spark that connect deeply with readers are softened.

There is another layer to this that’s been in recent headlines, the use of AI in schools. Kids in school are a prefect Petri dish for flushing out problems with AI.

Kids are clever, but not yet smart. When written assignments are turned in, the quality of the work is submitted at high academic levels. I could imagine the basic prompt engineering: “Write a 1,000 word essay about the Hamilton/Burr duel.” Within a minute, a prefect piece is presented, fact checked, ready to turn in.

And further, current and popular AI engines operate offer endless follow up options.

Examples:

“Would you like me to add short quotes from Hamilton and Burr’s letters leading up to the duel to give it even more historical weight and immediacy?”
“Would you like me to make It Interactive or Edgy?”
“Would you like me to Write it from Burr’s point of view, showing why he felt justified… Flip the perspective and write as if Hamilton had survived to tell the story….Explore “what if” scenarios — what if Hamilton had killed Burr, or refused the duel?

Within a matter of minutes this essay can be written, rewritten, edited and produced in .html, .pdf, text, for email, youtube… whatever you can imagine. And, if you can’t imagine, it will give you a list of formats you never knew existed.

This is just outside the bounds of plagiarism. But, in reality, AI did all the work. The only effort and thought process that was exercised by the student was how to craft a prompt.

AI renderings are fairly easy to spot. Once you have an eye for it, you’ll see it pretty much everywhere. I’m old school, I shake my head at artificially crafted work. “You damn Chats, get off my lawn!” But then there’s another consideration.

Maybe AI can play a role, but not rot the writing.

For me, working with this technology is relatively new. I can report it changes the way I approach many things. What it boils down to is how to communicate with AI (prompting) effectively, know its limitations, and really, what are my intentions for the work I’m doing.

Yeah, there are a lot of layers and moving parts on this subject. This technology is growing and evolving on a daily basis where its capabilities and limitations are constantly shifting. Supposedly, It learns from every interaction and has access to pretty much everything on the open web. With such power ability and reach, how do we utilize this technology, consciously and with integrity? I’m in the continuing process of figuring it out.

Jane, how do we ride this crazy thing?

What I am discovering is that AI can be a good assistant for certain things. It can be a sounding board for ideas and exploration. It can provide information gathered and assessed from a multitude or resources, instantly. It can offer suggestions for grammar, structure and formatting. It can take bodies of work and create supportive content, such as #titles, #tags, #descriptions, @text messages, @emails, #etc.

I will share what I’ve experimented and explored. Sure, I’ve had an idea and had AI write out an article on it. And Chat spit out a piece that was fantastic! And, after reading a few paragraphs, I realized, this is almost too good, too polished, it’s suspiciously off.

This initial draft was not for public consumption. I was curious to see what it would come up with. It was amazing that it could research, gather, assess, write and format large bodies of work within minutes, and much of it was accurate. And again, it had that funny smell to it.

What I can do with this material is read it for inspiration. I’d take bits and pieces from here and there and organize the ideas in my mind and my logic. I could create a scaffold, outline and then fill in the body. I might run that (my work) back through the machine and ask it’s feedback. And I’ve found most of it is false flattery.

So this back and forth process can get way out of hand, deep in the weeds, dig rabbit holes in a hurry. And in some recent works, I’ve re-read the material a few days later and eight thought, “hmm, this is pretty good.” Or, “This is crap, it stinks of AI”, or “This is not what I intended…” and I’ll pull the piece.

So, where I am I at with all this today?

For writing, I might use AI for a sounding board for ideas, to help format content and supportive elements for specific media. Where this has lead me is to a move back to the raw, messy, authentic, human approach. With all the bumps, sharp edges, mistakes, and even train wrecks, what it comes down to is expression. I often have an idea about what I want to share and how to express it. It’s not just language and grammar, it’s style, vibe. I’m not great, not even good. And I write anyway, and I’ve written a hell of a lot.

“I’ll throw some shit on the wall and see what happens” Kind of like Jackson Pollock.

For me, I learn as I go. I jump in with both feet, make mistakes and figure it out as I go. My process is rarely linear, often messy and hard to track.

Behold, the madness

“Yeah, but you don’t want to present material that sounds like you’re a crazy person! The run-on ideas, rants and raves, incongruent structure, where do you draw the line? Is there a balance? Something between the ramblings of a groggy, over-caffeinated madman and the stainless, sterile, marble-white work of AI.”

Today, I choose messy. madness