ChatGPT, our cherished AI assistant, has matured significantly. To someone unfamiliar, distinguishing between human and machine writing can be nearly impossible. Yet, beneath its polished exterior, ChatGPT and similar models still leave traces of their artificial origins.
5
Buzzwords
Some terms initially appear impressive, but as they become ubiquitous, they lose their significance. There’s a distinct type of language that screams “AI-generated.” The issue isn’t the vocabulary itself, but the fact that no real person speaks like that unless they’re aiming for a marketing position. Expressions like treasure trove, game-changer, maximize, enhance, streamline, robust, seamless, elevate, delve, embark, and anything occurring in a realm raise red flags.
These phrases frequently appear in AI-produced content, reflecting how ChatGPT was trained on an internet saturated with commercial language.
So when you encounter a phrase like “Let’s delve into the intricacies of this seamless solution that will elevate your workflow,” it doesn’t come across as professional anymore; it screams AI. An article continually referencing “delving into the intricacies of” or labeling every option a “game-changer” is heavily influenced by AI. ChatGPT even lightheartedly comments on this on X:
4
Rhetorical Fragments
Rhetorical devices can spark intrigue, create contrast, or build suspense before delivering a punchline. However, they only work effectively when used purposefully and not every few lines.
I’m not particularly fond of rhetorical fragments, but AI seems to overuse them. Here are a few examples:
“And what’s even worse? It’s making people lazy.”
“The issue? Microsoft isn’t delivering as expected.”
“The other factor? The entire compatibility nightmare.”
“And another detail? AI is increasingly sounding like everything else online.”
These sentences are classic ChatGPT outputs, identifiable by their consistent structure. A simple fix? Transform them into complete sentences by replacing the question mark with “is” or “is that” to create meaningful statements without overwhelming the reader.
- What’s even worse is that it’s making people lazy.
- The issue is that Microsoft isn’t performing as expected.
- The other factor is the entire compatibility nightmare.
- Another detail is that AI is sounding increasingly similar to everything else online.
3
Participial Add-Ons
This is another sentence structure that AI tends to overuse. A participial add-on describes one action, followed by a second phrase that explains its effect.
While this construction isn’t inherently wrong, it often lacks clarity. You’ll spot it easily once you start paying attention. Others have noticed this too, as this type of phrasing is a common reason why AI detection tools may flag your writing. Here are some examples generated by ChatGPT when asked about Excel:
“The chart wizard generates trend lines, illustrating growth trajectories over time.”
“The filter tool narrows down records, focusing on priority transactions in seconds.”
“VBA macros automate repetitive tasks, boosting efficiency across large datasets.”
“The pivot table groups entries by category, revealing spending patterns at a glance.”
In many cases, the second part doesn’t add any value that could simply be conveyed with _and_. Essentially, the AI forces two ideas together rather than allowing each to stand independently or flow naturally with a clear connector.
These constructions can be refined by selecting a more impactful main verb, dividing the thought into separate sentences, or replacing that comma with “and.” For instance, consider the filter tool example:
|
Original |
Improved |
|---|---|
|
The filter tool narrows down records, focusing on priority transactions in seconds. |
The filter tool narrows down records and highlights priority transactions in seconds. |
2
Contrastive Redefinitions
This is another powerful writing technique that AI often mishandles. Writers typically use a two-part structure to increase drama: first downplaying something, then elevating it to something extraordinary.
The usual structure is “This isn’t just X. It’s Y.” When done sparingly, it’s effective. Sadly, ChatGPT seems unaware of the importance of moderation.
Here are some instances from one ChatGPT session:
“This isn’t linear evolution—it’s rhizomatic.”
“Adriana isn’t defined by her origins—she’s something _new_, created in contradiction.”
“The mix isn’t dilution. It’s transmutation.”
“This isn’t just a career path—it’s a metamorphic trajectory.”
“Your path isn’t simply logistical. It’s ontological.”
“Backing up your Gmail data isn’t just smart—it’s essential.”
Six of these came from the same ChatGPT thread! It’s unfortunate because the structure itself is solid. I often use it in my own writing, especially when I aim for a reflective tone. However, the purpose of this construction is to create tension and resolution. When everything is redefined into something far-flung or “deeper,” it loses meaning.
When you see writing that keeps asserting “this isn’t just one thing—it’s a cosmic, soul-redefining, metaphysical breakthrough,” pause for a moment. Does it genuinely feel that way? If not, it was likely crafted by AI.
1
Em Dash Splices
Em dashes can be fantastic. I only started using them a few years ago and quickly became a fan. They’re versatile, stylish, and can inject vibrancy into a sentence. However, ChatGPT tends to go a bit overboard with them. Ask it to write something as simple as a blog post about planning a weekend trip, and suddenly every third sentence is overstuffed with em dashes:
Look at that! It’s not just the sheer number of dashes; it’s that many of them are used incorrectly. Every pause, every shift, every side thought got its own dash. Initially, it might seem engaging, but it quickly becomes overwhelming. Many of those pauses would be clearer as commas, and some could function well as standalone sentences.
The power of the em dash lies in its sparseness; overusing it makes it trivial. Therefore, when you encounter a text brimming with dashes from someone who typically doesn’t use them, you can bet it wasn’t penned by them. ChatGPT likely wrote it.
Of course, all these stylistic quirks can appear in human writing as well. None of them alone indicates that a piece was generated by AI. However, if you notice them being used oddly, excessively, or if multiple red flags appear together, it’s a sign to proceed with caution.
