a16z Deep Dive: Stop Chasing the 'AI Smell', Here's a Practical Guide to Writing with AI
"Don't Obsess Over AI Detection: A Practical Guide to Writing Alongside AI" by Steph Zinn (a16z Crypto)
This guide moves beyond the flawed premise that AI-generated text can be easily spotted by a set of "tells" and that these features automatically mean poor quality. Instead, it focuses on how writers and founders can use LLMs effectively by understanding, controlling, and editing the common stylistic tendencies of AI-assisted prose.
The article breaks down AI writing "tells" into four key dimensions:
**1. Rhetorical Features (Insight-Shaped Writing):** AI often produces semantically empty, "corporate-sounding" filler language—vague profundities, hedging phrases, excessive parallelism, and summary statements. The advice is to ruthlessly edit these out, using prompts to make language more specific and direct.
**2. Voice Features (The Alexa Voice):** Default AI writing relies on a narrow, fungible vocabulary of low-friction, abstract words and cliché phrases that lack personality. While this generic voice is acceptable for support docs or mass communications, founders should preserve their unique voice for impactful writing. Use LLMs to identify and replace jargon, aiming for concrete, distinctive word choices.
**3. Structural Features (Form Without Function):** AI tends towards over-structured text with excessive subheadings, lists, roadmaps, and the rigid "three-point" framework. While clear structure is good for readability and SEO, it shouldn't force ideas into unnatural containers. Choose a structure that serves the format and purpose, borrowing from effective examples.
**4. Punctuation Features (Dash Panic):** The overuse of em dashes and colons has become a hallmark, but writers shouldn't avoid useful punctuation just to seem "human." The key is avoiding repetitive, distracting patterns. Use punctuation that is grammatically correct and supports the flow of your argument.
The core argument is that many so-called AI flaws are just amplified versions of existing bad writing habits. The goal isn't to eliminate AI's role but to use it as a tool while maintaining editorial control. The final question shouldn't be "Can this be detected as AI?" but "Does this writing effectively do its job?"
marsbit1 h fa
