You can spot AI-generated writing from a mile away, and it’s not for the reasons you think. I’ve been noticing a strange echo chamber effect lately, where our own writing starts to sound like the very tools we’re using. A recent post from a brilliant LinkedIn creator completely crystallized this idea, breaking down the exact verbal tics and formulaic phrases that give the game away.
It was one of those moments where I felt completely seen. The mind behind it pointed out that as we use AI more, we unconsciously adopt its stylistic habits. It’s like a cognitive shortcut; these patterns sound profound and structured, so we start using them ourselves. The result is a sea of content that feels generic, predictable, and, well, robotic. It’s a subtle trap that replaces genuine perspective with hollow rhetoric.
Let’s dive into the patterns this innovator uncovered so you can spot and eliminate them from your own work.
🎭 The “IN A WORLD WHERE” Drama
This one is a classic. It sets up a vague, dramatic premise and then drops a simplistic moral. I was shocked to see how often I’ve read—and maybe even written—sentences that follow this exact script. It feels grand, but it’s just empty calories.
📌 The Formula: “In a world where [scary/overwhelming change], [virtue/edge] becomes [currency/advantage].”
This savvy professional shared a few perfect examples:
- “In a world where everyone has AI, taste becomes the only edge.”
- “In a world where content is infinite, curation becomes priceless.”
- “In a world where prompts are cheap, perspective is expensive.”
Why it fails: This structure creates a false sense of high stakes without providing any specific, grounded context. It’s a crutch for when you want to sound important but don’t have a real story or concrete data point to share. Human writing connects through specificity and vulnerability. This formula does the opposite; it generalizes from a 30,000-foot view.
How to fix it: Instead of declaring a universal truth from on high, tell a personal, specific story. Replace “In a world where content is infinite, curation becomes priceless” with something grounded in your experience. For example: “My team was drowning in articles and reports last quarter. We spent more time sorting information than using it. So, I started a simple weekly digest with only the top 3 must-reads. Productivity soared because we valued the curation, not the quantity.”
🏆 The “MOST PEOPLE VS FEW WHO” Split
This is the bread and butter of pseudo-inspirational content. It creates a simple, moralizing binary between a lazy majority and a disciplined, enlightened few. The person who shared it correctly identifies this as a form of generalization that feels preachy and unearned.
📌 The Formula: “Most people [lazy thing]. The few who win [disciplined thing].”
Here are some examples the creator flagged:
- “Most people use AI to move faster. The few who win use it to think deeper.”
- “Most teams chase more tools. The best teams master one workflow.”
- “Most creators fight the algorithm. The smart ones train it.”
Why it fails: This formula creates an ‘us vs. them’ dynamic that rarely holds up to scrutiny. It makes broad, unsupported claims about “most people” to elevate a particular behavior. This is exactly how an AI would synthesize thousands of motivational posts—by identifying a common trope and replicating it without any real-world evidence or nuance. It positions the writer as a guru, not a peer.
How to fix it: Frame your insights through your own journey and observations, not judgment. Instead of a sweeping generalization, speak from your own experience. For instance, turn “Most people use AI to move faster. The few who win use it to think deeper” into a relatable reflection: “For my first few months with AI, my only goal was speed. But I recently pivoted my approach. I’m now using it less for final drafts and more as a brainstorming partner to challenge my core ideas. The depth of my work has improved dramatically.”
💡 The “NOT THIS. NOT THAT. BUT THIS.” Triple
This rhetorical trick is designed to create a rhythm that sounds insightful, but it often just knocks down two obvious or weak ideas (strawmen) to make a third one seem brilliant by comparison. The post’s author nails it by calling it “rhythmic fake depth.”
📌 The Formula: “It’s not [obvious thing]. It’s not [second obvious thing]. It’s [third ‘unexpected’ thing].”
This industry pro provided these stellar examples:
- “It’s not about perfect prompts. It’s not about new tools. It’s about repeating one boring workflow every day.”
- “It’s not speed. It’s not talent. It’s consistency with feedback.”
- “It’s not learning AI. It’s not learning code. It’s learning to ask better questions.”
Why it fails: This pattern oversimplifies complex topics into a neat, three-part slogan. AI excels at this because it’s a defined logical structure. Real-world success is rarely about one thing; it’s about the interplay of many factors. By dismissing “speed” and “talent,” the statement loses credibility because we know those things do matter. It’s a formula for a snappy tweet, not a thoughtful analysis.
How to fix it: Acknowledge the complexity instead of creating false choices. Embrace the “and” instead of the “not/but.” Rephrase “It’s not speed. It’s not talent. It’s consistency with feedback” to show a more sophisticated understanding: “While speed and natural talent are definite advantages, I’m finding that the most reliable path to growth is building a system for consistently applying feedback. It’s the engine that makes talent and speed even more effective over time.”
🛠️ Breaking Free From AI-Speak
Recognizing these patterns is the first step, but breaking the habit is the real work. It’s a challenge because these formulas are tempting shortcuts to sounding smart.
- ✅ Audit yourself: Go back and read your last five articles or posts. Be honest. Did you lean on any of these formulas?
- ✅ Write first, AI second: Draft your raw, messy, human thoughts in a document before you ever open an AI tool. Use AI for refinement and editing, not initial idea generation.
- ✅ Read human authors: Deliberately read well-written books, essays, and articles from great writers. The more you immerse yourself in authentic human voices, the less likely you’ll be to echo a robotic one.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. The original poster identified several more of these patterns that are hiding in plain sight. I highly recommend you check out the full article from this talented creator to see the complete list. It will change how you write!