TheWhyLab

AI has permeated every aspect of text we consume every single day. AI appeals to the human nature of laziness — the moral argument is an entirely different story. That being said, I would like to explore whether we can tell a difference, even more importantly, is knowing the difference important?

Ok, let’s start with my opening paragraph… let’s re-read it and give it an out of 10 rating for how satisfied you felt after reading it.

All done?

Now, I will feed this same sentence to AI and just simply ask to improve it. Here it is:

AI now permeates nearly every piece of text we encounter in daily life. Its appeal lies partly in our natural tendency toward convenience, though the moral implications are a separate debate. The question I want to raise is twofold: can we actually tell the difference between AI-generated and human writing, and—perhaps more importantly—does that difference matter?

Now, give that a rating out of 10.

Let’s look at what it changed, to get a better idea of what it did. And why or why it isn’t better or worse than the human (me).

“every aspect of text we consume every single day” → “nearly every piece of text we encounter in daily life”

This feels more specific and direct (AI wins — Human 0:1 AI)

“AI appeals to the human nature of laziness” → “Its appeal lies partly in our natural tendency toward convenience”

Less jarring, more muted, I like the honesty better in the first… (Human 1:1 AI)

“the moral argument is an entirely different story” → “though the moral implications are a separate debate.”

I like the conversational tone of the human better (Human 2:1 AI)

“I would like to explore” → “The question I want to raise”

Human is less wordy (Human 3:1 AI)

“whether we can tell a difference” → “can we actually tell the difference between AI-generated and human writing”

AI is open-ended, more inviting, punchier (Human 3:2 AI)

“even more importantly, is knowing the difference important?” → “and—perhaps more importantly—does that difference matter?”

AI feels less clunky (Human 3:3 AI)

I feel that ultimately — the AI is more logically sound, but lacks personality.

Now, let’s see at what I have noticed:

1. Those — darn — lines –: for anyone that has spent time interacting with these tools, one can see that AI tends to use (called an “Emphasis Dash” Em-Dash for short).
2. Colons ” : ” : AI organizes ideas in a very structured and logical manner, it loves lists and order.
3. Lack of personality: AI is generic, it is somehow too perfect — imperfection is a human trait.

More than ever, I am noticing real differences in the quality of writing within my peers in academia. My main gripes with the technology come from the fact that it generates the entire idea, it is sprinkled with fancier language, precise structure, and exact cadence — real, creative, beautiful ideas rise from a physical interaction with the world around us, something AI will never do.

Using these tools to tighten up ideas and flow seem acceptable (to me at least), since these tools manage to alleviate the disadvantages posed by the failure of fair access to quality education or writing tutors. However, the idea or concept that is being written must not lose its humanity.