I’ve seen this posted a couple of times lately, and I think the conversation is getting oversimplified.

I think the problem with creating hard-and-fast rules for “AI writing” is that AI was trained on human writing. Every item on those viral charts—em dashes, sentence rhythm, parallel structure, transitions, repetition for emphasis, clean grammar—is also a legitimate writing technique humans have used since Mrs Crabapple’s 3rd grade Language class.

Good writers vary sentence length. Good writers use emphasis. Good writers structure arguments clearly. None of that suddenly became artificial because a machine learned to imitate it.

While I understand the need to stay vigilant, there isn’t a single reliable method to determine whether something was written by AI. Most of the so-called “tells” are really just signs of polished or standardized prose.I think the real conversation should be about good writing versus bad writing.

The biggest weakness of AI writing isn’t sentence construction. Honestly, AI can structure a sentence pretty well. The weakness is tone. Voice. Perspective. The strange little imperfections that make human writing feel alive.ai often sounds technically correct but emotionally weightless. It lacks friction. It lacks lived experience. It rarely surprises you with an observation that feels painfully specific or deeply human.

That’s the difference people are actually reacting to, even if they’re describing it poorly. YMMV