Using AI for Writing…
Using AI during the process of writing to help structure your flow, remove some redundancies or perhaps provide feedback on the tone or inconsistencies, is a great use of AI. But, using it to author an entire post and then to attach your name to it, even though you seeded it with a few prompts or statements, is not a good use of AI in my opinion. The resulting content is formulaic, it lacks soul, and worst of all, you lose credibility as an author.
If you pay attention, you can spot certain classic ChatGPT content patterns quite easily. And for me, once I see them, I lose all interest (and faith) in the content. I just read a short article here on LinkedIn authored by someone who is a co-founder in a blockchain news network. His article was so full of these patterns that I was driven to make this post and see if I’m not alone in becoming tired and weary of this kind of mechanistic and sometimes bombastic content.
Here are a few of these patterns; let me know if you’re noticing these as well, and if it’s having a similar impact on your interest or confidence in the material overall.
Pattern #1: The “…at the intersection of…” pattern. This one is a dead giveaway. It’s typically near the beginning of the article and is used as an introductory vehicle to set the tone for the piece. It’s followed by 2 or 3 grandiose buzz words. Here’s the one from the LinkedIn article I referred to (person’s name removed):
“[person] is building at the intersection of software, artificial intelligence, and scale”.
I hate this “intersection of” phrase. It’s so cheap, so lazy, so cliché. It makes me want to vomit when I read it (sorry for the visual, but what you’re reading now is real human thought put into words, not statistically relevant tokens chained together).
Get Lmcdunna’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Pattern #2: The frequent use of the em dash ( — ). I’ve heard other people point this out too. It’s easy to spot and creates a nice flow in whatever story you’re telling, so I get it. But, it’s not something I’ve seen a lot in content before AI started sprinkling it all over the place. Ask ChatGPT to summarize your resume or LinkedIn experience, and it will use a ton of these punctuation vehicles throughout the summary. The LinkedIn article I referred to used the em dash character 10 times in the 4 paragraph piece. Before I read an article now, I find myself visually scanning it to see how many I can spot right away. If many, I move on. I’m not interested in reading something that someone was too lazy to write themselves, and heaven forbid, put some feeling or opinion into the article.
Pattern #3: The “…it didn’t just X, it Y…” phrase. This phrase was used in 3 of the 4 paragraphs in that LinkedIn article I mentioned. It’s so easy to spot now, and once I see it, I prepare myself for the overblown revelation this snazzy, literary vehicle is setting me up for. Here are 3 examples used in that article I mentioned (I removed the person’s name):
“[person] didn’t just study computer science — he began rethinking how computer code itself should be created”
“This wasn’t just a deal — it was a signal”
“[person] didn’t just join the conversation — he forced the world to pay attention.”
Note how this is used together with the em dash. Together they make for a nice flow and a great way to put a strong punch (the overblown revelation) into the point the artificial author is making in the second half, as in “ — he forced the world to pay attention”. Wow. This got my attention alright! BTW, this sarcasm, this humor, is wholly human generated.
What patterns have you seen? Do you feel less confident in the material as I do when you realize it’s been generated by AI?
