Don’t rush to find the “cue words to remove the AI-generated feel” yet.
Many people find that articles written by AI "have a strong AI-generated feel", and their first reaction is to continue to change the prompts: don't be like AI, be natural, have warmth, and be like real people. The result is often just a new set of clichés.
The reason is simple. If the material obtained by the tool has only one topic, it will not know what you have actually seen, what the reader is worried about, or which sentence you must want to say. It can only fill in the blanks with the most common and safest expressions.
The machine-like smell is not just a matter of writing style, but oftentimes there is nothing in the material.
Delete words that can be replaced in any article
The following paragraph is very complete and easy to read at a glance:
In today's rapidly developing era, the importance of reading is self-evident. The reopening of the community library will not only provide residents with rich reading resources, but will also further create a good cultural atmosphere. Let us look forward to the new vitality of this beautiful space.
Its problem is not which model is used, but that there is no information that residents can use to do things. "Era of rapid development", "importance is self-evident" and "renewed vitality" are valid if included in many articles, and deleting them will not affect the facts.
If there are specific arrangements in the raw materials, you can write them directly:
The community library will reopen on September 6, and its address will still be on the second floor of No. 18 Qinghe Road. The new opening hours are 9:00-18:00 from Tuesday to Sunday, closed on Mondays. Residents who take their children to the children's reading area, please note: reservations are required after 16:30 every day, and each session is limited to 20 people.
The second paragraph is not necessarily more literary, but it has people, time, place and action. After reading the book, readers will know what to do next, and the AI-generated feel will naturally be reduced by more than half.
Don’t make every paragraph look the same
AI likes to write articles too neatly: each section is divided into three paragraphs. Each paragraph first defines the definition, then lists three points, and finally says "in summary". This structure is convenient to generate, but it does not necessarily conform to the thing itself.
- Three consecutive paragraphs beginning with "first, second, and last";
- The number of words in each subtitle is about the same, and the sentence structure is completely parallel;
- A very simple thing is broken down into "background, value, challenges, and future prospects";
- The paragraph ends with the constant repetition of "It's not only...but..." and "It's worth noting";
- The article ends with a complete summary of what was said previously.
There is no need to deliberately mess up sentences when revising. Just let the structure follow the content: if one sentence can be clearly stated, don't divide it into three points; write two more sentences for important places, and end directly for unimportant places; the ending has been said, so there is no need to add value.
Giving a real example is more useful than giving ten adjectives
"Write naturally" is too vague. A more effective approach is to give a short paragraph of text that you approve of and let the tool see what you say naturally. Google's prompt design instructions call this approach few-shot examples, and recommend that the format of each reference text be consistent; Anthropic's prompt guidelines also point out that the format and style of the prompt itself will affect the output.
The reference text does not need to be very long, about three hundred words is enough. Choose a piece of content that you have written that you are willing to continue using, and then explicitly tell the tool to only learn the following features:
- How sentence length changes;
- I prefer to tell the conclusion directly, or explain the scene first;
- Will you use subheadings and bullet points?
- Which words are never used;
- How to address readers and how to handle uncertain information.
Don’t ask a tool to imitate a living author, and don’t just throw in a “write like so-and-so.” By using words you have access to as a reference, the results are more controllable and closer to your own long-term expression.
The second edit is more important than continuing to pile up reminder words
Once the first draft is out, stop saying, “Rewrite it to make it look more like a real person.” Change in the following order, which is usually faster.
- Check the facts first: delete numbers, experiences, evaluations, and causal relationships that are not in the material.
- Delete empty words again: Circle sentences that would be valid in another article, and delete them if you can.
- Add specific nouns: Replace “relevant personnel, relevant parties, and effective measures” with real people, documents, and actions.
- Break down the structure: merge the three points that you barely made up, delete repeated summaries, and let the paragraphs be naturally long and short according to the content.
- Finally read aloud: break down the sentences that you can’t finish reading in one breath, and replace them with words that you would never say in normal times.
If your name is to be attached to the article, you must at least complete the editing yourself. Not to hide tools, but because only you know which facts are reliable and which statements truly represent your judgment.
A modification request that can be used directly
You can submit the following requirements to the tool together with the raw materials and reference examples:
First list the facts that have been determined in the raw materials and the matters that are still uncertain, and then write the main text. The main text only writes one thing that readers need to know this time, and does not add any experiences or conclusions other than the material. Delete the opening and ending that can be put into any article, and do not use clichés such as "in today's era", "self-evident", "not only... but...". Vary naturally in sentence length and use bullet points when necessary. Check again after completion: whether the facts are accurate, whether there are repeated summaries, and whether each abstract word can be replaced by a specific person or action.
This requirement cannot turn empty material into rich material, but it allows the tool to hold on to the facts and structure first. What really determines whether the article has a human voice or not is still what experiences you give, what details you choose, and which sentence of your own judgment you leave at the end.
official information
For instructions on clear instructions and reference examples in this article, please refer to:
