How to Combat AI-Speak

"While there is a case to be made for AI as a potential research tool or brainstorming agent (though those, too, are debatable), stylistically, AI leaves a lot to be desired. Sure, there are usually no egregious typos, and one senses a generic professionalism evident in AI writing. But, to use an outdated term, there is no "soul" in the writing, no "I" of subjective, lived experience."

"The danger is when this creeps into other parts of our lives and begins to speak through us, ventriloquizing our speech in contexts that matter-love, family, interviews, opinion, and even self-concept. If we are, in large part, an effect of language-shaped and organized by the words and phrases we use about ourselves and others-then what might be the impact of large scale adoption of AI on our language and consequent views and notions of ourselves, others, and society at large?"

"One tendency we see in LLMs is the habit of producing "balanced but empty" statements. i.e., "On the one hand, and on the other hand..." LLMs tend typically (for now) towards this kind of balance in their writing. It gives us the appearance of a well-thought-out structure that has considered all angles. It even contains a notion that all points have two sides to them"

AI and large language models produce competent but generic linguistic templates that lack subjective voice and 'soul'. Mechanical correctness and balanced phrasing create professional but emotionally bland prose. That style may be acceptable for formal reports or routine tasks but becomes problematic when deployed in intimate or identity-shaping contexts such as love, family, interviews, opinions, and self-concept. Widespread adoption risks ventriloquizing individual speech and reshaping collective language and self-understanding. LLMs commonly generate 'balanced but empty' statements that present both sides without depth. First-person 'I' disclosure requires vulnerability but fosters stronger interpersonal trust.

Read at Psychology Today