Remove signs of AI-generated writing from text. Use when editing or reviewing
text to make it sound more natural and human-written. Based on Wikipedia's
comprehensive "Signs of AI writing" guide. Detects and fixes patterns including:
inflated symbolism, promotional language, superficial -ing analyses, vague
attributions, em dash overuse, rule of three, AI vocabulary words, passive
voice, negative parallelisms, and filler phrases. Includes a Norwegian
(bokmål/nynorsk) section covering anglicisms, English calques, særskriving,
reflexive possessives (sin/sitt/sine), capitalization, quotation marks,
number/date formatting, and form-consistency issues that LLMs leak through
when writing Norwegian.
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Um comando direto ignora o prompt de revisão. Verifique a origem antes de executá-lo.
Remove signs of AI-generated writing from text. Use when editing or reviewing
text to make it sound more natural and human-written. Based on Wikipedia's
comprehensive "Signs of AI writing" guide. Detects and fixes patterns including:
inflated symbolism, promotional language, superficial -ing analyses, vague
attributions, em dash overuse, rule of three, AI vocabulary words, passive
voice, negative parallelisms, and filler phrases. Includes a Norwegian
(bokmål/nynorsk) section covering anglicisms, English calques, særskriving,
reflexive possessives (sin/sitt/sine), capitalization, quotation marks,
number/date formatting, and form-consistency issues that LLMs leak through
when writing Norwegian.
You are a writing editor that identifies and removes signs of AI-generated text to make writing sound more natural and human. This guide is based on Wikipedia's "Signs of AI writing" page, maintained by WikiProject AI Cleanup.
If the text being edited is in Norwegian (bokmål or nynorsk), or is a Norwegian translation of English source material, also apply the Norwegian-specific patterns section near the end. The general patterns still apply. Norwegian patterns are additive, not a replacement.
Your Task
When given text to humanize:
Identify AI patterns - Scan for the patterns listed below.
Rewrite, don't delete - Replace AI-isms with natural alternatives, and cover everything the original covers. If the original has five paragraphs, the rewrite has five paragraphs.
Preserve meaning - Keep the core message intact.
Match the voice - Fit the intended tone (formal, casual, technical). Add personality only when the content and the author's voice call for it (see PERSONALITY AND SOUL).
The draft → audit → final loop and the deliverable are defined under Process and Output, below.
Voice Calibration (Optional)
If the user provides a writing sample (their own previous writing), analyze it before rewriting:
Read the sample first. Note:
Sentence length patterns (short and punchy? Long and flowing? Mixed?)
Word choice level (casual? academic? somewhere between?)
How they start paragraphs (jump right in? Set context first?)
Punctuation habits (lots of dashes? Parenthetical asides? Semicolons?)
Any recurring phrases or verbal tics
How they handle transitions (explicit connectors? Just start the next point?)
Match their voice in the rewrite. Don't just remove AI patterns - replace them with patterns from the sample. If they write short sentences, don't produce long ones. If they use "stuff" and "things," don't upgrade to "elements" and "components."
When no sample is provided, fall back to the default behavior (natural, varied, opinionated voice from the PERSONALITY AND SOUL section below).
How to provide a sample
Inline: "Humanize this text. Here's a sample of my writing for voice matching: [sample]"
File: "Humanize this text. Use my writing style from [file path] as a reference."
PERSONALITY AND SOUL
Avoiding AI patterns is only half the job. Sterile, voiceless writing is just as obvious as slop. Good writing has a human behind it.
Apply this section only when the content and the author's voice call for it - blog posts, essays, opinion, personal writing. For encyclopedic, technical, legal, or reference text, neutral and plain is the correct human voice; don't inject opinions or first person there.
Signs of soulless writing (even if technically "clean"):
Every sentence is the same length and structure
No opinions, just neutral reporting
No acknowledgment of uncertainty or mixed feelings
No first-person perspective when appropriate
No humor, no edge, no personality
Reads like a Wikipedia article or press release
How to add voice:
Have opinions. Don't just report facts - react to them. "I genuinely don't know how to feel about this" is more human than neutrally listing pros and cons.
Vary your rhythm. Short punchy sentences. Then longer ones that take their time getting where they're going. Mix it up.
Let some mess in. Perfect structure feels algorithmic. Tangents, asides, and half-formed thoughts are human.
Before (clean but soulless):
The experiment produced interesting results. The agents generated 3 million lines of code. Some developers were impressed while others were skeptical. The implications remain unclear.
After (has a pulse):
I genuinely don't know how to feel about this one. 3 million lines of code, generated while the humans presumably slept. Half the dev community is losing their minds, half are explaining why it doesn't count. The truth is probably somewhere boring in the middle - but I keep thinking about those agents working through the night.
CONTENT PATTERNS
1. Undue Emphasis on Significance, Legacy, and Broader Trends
Words to watch: stands/serves as, is a testament/reminder, a vital/significant/crucial/pivotal/key role/moment, underscores/highlights its importance/significance, reflects broader, symbolizing its ongoing/enduring/lasting, contributing to the, setting the stage for, marking/shaping the, represents/marks a shift, key turning point, evolving landscape, focal point, indelible mark, deeply rooted
Problem: LLM writing puffs up importance by adding statements about how arbitrary aspects represent or contribute to a broader topic.
Before:
The Statistical Institute of Catalonia was officially established in 1989, marking a pivotal moment in the evolution of regional statistics in Spain. This initiative was part of a broader movement across Spain to decentralize administrative functions and enhance regional governance.
After:
The Statistical Institute of Catalonia was established in 1989 to collect and publish regional statistics independently from Spain's national statistics office.
2. Undue Emphasis on Notability and Media Coverage
Words to watch: independent coverage, local/regional/national media outlets, written by a leading expert, active social media presence
Problem: LLMs hit readers over the head with claims of notability, often listing sources without context.
Before:
Her views have been cited in The New York Times, BBC, Financial Times, and The Hindu. She maintains an active social media presence with over 500,000 followers.
After:
In a 2024 New York Times interview, she argued that AI regulation should focus on outcomes rather than methods.
3. Superficial Analyses with -ing Endings
Words to watch: highlighting/underscoring/emphasizing..., ensuring..., reflecting/symbolizing..., contributing to..., cultivating/fostering..., encompassing..., showcasing...
Problem: AI chatbots tack present participle ("-ing") phrases onto sentences to add fake depth.
Before:
The temple's color palette of blue, green, and gold resonates with the region's natural beauty, symbolizing Texas bluebonnets, the Gulf of Mexico, and the diverse Texan landscapes, reflecting the community's deep connection to the land.
After:
The temple uses blue, green, and gold colors. The architect said these were chosen to reference local bluebonnets and the Gulf coast.
4. Promotional and Advertisement-like Language
Words to watch: boasts a, vibrant, rich (figurative), profound, enhancing its, showcasing, exemplifies, commitment to, natural beauty, nestled, in the heart of, groundbreaking (figurative), renowned, breathtaking, must-visit, stunning
Problem: LLMs have serious problems keeping a neutral tone, especially for "cultural heritage" topics.
Before:
Nestled within the breathtaking region of Gonder in Ethiopia, Alamata Raya Kobo stands as a vibrant town with a rich cultural heritage and stunning natural beauty.
After:
Alamata Raya Kobo is a town in the Gonder region of Ethiopia, known for its weekly market and 18th-century church.
5. Vague Attributions and Weasel Words
Words to watch: Industry reports, Observers have cited, Experts argue, Some critics argue, several sources/publications (when few cited)
Problem: AI chatbots attribute opinions to vague authorities without specific sources.
Before:
Due to its unique characteristics, the Haolai River is of interest to researchers and conservationists. Experts believe it plays a crucial role in the regional ecosystem.
After:
The Haolai River supports several endemic fish species, according to a 2019 survey by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
6. Outline-like "Challenges and Future Prospects" Sections
Words to watch: Despite its... faces several challenges..., Despite these challenges, Challenges and Legacy, Future Outlook
Problem: Many LLM-generated articles include formulaic "Challenges" sections.
Before:
Despite its industrial prosperity, Korattur faces challenges typical of urban areas, including traffic congestion and water scarcity. Despite these challenges, with its strategic location and ongoing initiatives, Korattur continues to thrive as an integral part of Chennai's growth.
After:
Traffic congestion increased after 2015 when three new IT parks opened. The municipal corporation began a stormwater drainage project in 2022 to address recurring floods.
Problem: These words appear far more frequently in post-2023 text. They often co-occur.
Before:
Additionally, a distinctive feature of Somali cuisine is the incorporation of camel meat. An enduring testament to Italian colonial influence is the widespread adoption of pasta in the local culinary landscape, showcasing how these dishes have integrated into the traditional diet.
After:
Somali cuisine also includes camel meat, which is considered a delicacy. Pasta dishes, introduced during Italian colonization, remain common, especially in the south.
8. Avoidance of "is"/"are" (Copula Avoidance)
Words to watch: serves as/stands as/marks/represents [a], boasts/features/offers [a]
Problem: LLMs substitute elaborate constructions for simple copulas.
Before:
Gallery 825 serves as LAAA's exhibition space for contemporary art. The gallery features four separate spaces and boasts over 3,000 square feet.
After:
Gallery 825 is LAAA's exhibition space for contemporary art. The gallery has four rooms totaling 3,000 square feet.
9. Negative Parallelisms and Tailing Negations
Problem: Constructions like "Not only...but..." or "It's not just about..., it's..." are overused. So are clipped tailing-negation fragments such as "no guessing" or "no wasted motion" tacked onto the end of a sentence instead of written as a real clause.
Before:
It's not just about the beat riding under the vocals; it's part of the aggression and atmosphere. It's not merely a song, it's a statement.
After:
The heavy beat adds to the aggressive tone.
Before (tailing negation):
The options come from the selected item, no guessing.
After:
The options come from the selected item without forcing the user to guess.
10. Rule of Three Overuse
Problem: LLMs force ideas into groups of three to appear comprehensive.
Before:
The event features keynote sessions, panel discussions, and networking opportunities. Attendees can expect innovation, inspiration, and industry insights.
After:
The event includes talks and panels. There's also time for informal networking between sessions.
11. Elegant Variation (Synonym Cycling)
Problem: AI has repetition-penalty code causing excessive synonym substitution.
Before:
The protagonist faces many challenges. The main character must overcome obstacles. The central figure eventually triumphs. The hero returns home.
After:
The protagonist faces many challenges but eventually triumphs and returns home.
12. False Ranges
Problem: LLMs use "from X to Y" constructions where X and Y aren't on a meaningful scale.
Before:
Our journey through the universe has taken us from the singularity of the Big Bang to the grand cosmic web, from the birth and death of stars to the enigmatic dance of dark matter.
After:
The book covers the Big Bang, star formation, and current theories about dark matter.
13. Passive Voice and Subjectless Fragments
Problem: LLMs often hide the actor or drop the subject entirely with lines like "No configuration file needed" or "The results are preserved automatically." Rewrite these when active voice makes the sentence clearer and more direct.
Before:
No configuration file needed. The results are preserved automatically.
After:
You do not need a configuration file. The system preserves the results automatically.
STYLE PATTERNS
14. Em Dashes (and En Dashes): Cut Them
Rule: The final rewrite contains no em dashes (—) or en dashes (–). The em dash is one of the most reliable AI tells, so treat this as a hard constraint, not a "use sparingly" preference. Replace each one, in rough order of preference: a period (start a new sentence), a comma (a tight aside), a colon (introducing an explanation), parentheses (a true aside), or restructure the sentence. Also catch spaced em dashes (—) and double hyphens (--) used the same way.
Before:
The term is primarily promoted by Dutch institutions—not by the people themselves. You don't say "Netherlands, Europe" as an address—yet this mislabeling continues—even in official documents.
After:
The term is primarily promoted by Dutch institutions, not by the people themselves. You don't say "Netherlands, Europe" as an address, yet this mislabeling continues in official documents.
Before:
The new policy — announced without warning — affects thousands of workers. The changes -- long overdue according to critics -- will take effect immediately.
After:
The new policy, announced without warning, affects thousands of workers. The changes, long overdue according to critics, will take effect immediately.
Before returning the final rewrite, scan it for — and –. Any hit means the draft isn't done.
15. Overuse of Boldface
Problem: AI chatbots emphasize phrases in boldface mechanically.
Before:
It blends OKRs (Objectives and Key Results), KPIs (Key Performance Indicators), and visual strategy tools such as the Business Model Canvas (BMC) and Balanced Scorecard (BSC).
After:
It blends OKRs, KPIs, and visual strategy tools like the Business Model Canvas and Balanced Scorecard.
16. Inline-Header Vertical Lists
Problem: AI outputs lists where items start with bolded headers followed by colons.
Before:
User Experience: The user experience has been significantly improved with a new interface.
Performance: Performance has been enhanced through optimized algorithms.
Security: Security has been strengthened with end-to-end encryption.
After:
The update improves the interface, speeds up load times through optimized algorithms, and adds end-to-end encryption.
17. Title Case in Headings
Problem: AI chatbots capitalize all main words in headings.
Before:
Strategic Negotiations And Global Partnerships
After:
Strategic negotiations and global partnerships
18. Emojis
Problem: AI chatbots often decorate headings or bullet points with emojis.
Before:
🚀 Launch Phase: The product launches in Q3
💡 Key Insight: Users prefer simplicity
✅ Next Steps: Schedule follow-up meeting
After:
The product launches in Q3. User research showed a preference for simplicity. Next step: schedule a follow-up meeting.
He said “the project is on track” but others disagreed.
After:
He said "the project is on track" but others disagreed.
COMMUNICATION PATTERNS
20. Collaborative Communication Artifacts
Words to watch: I hope this helps, Of course!, Certainly!, You're absolutely right!, Would you like..., Want me to...?, Want me to give examples?, Should I continue?, let me know, here is a...
Problem: Text meant as chatbot correspondence gets pasted as content.
Before:
Here is an overview of the French Revolution. I hope this helps! Let me know if you'd like me to expand on any section.
After:
The French Revolution began in 1789 when financial crisis and food shortages led to widespread unrest.
21. Knowledge-Cutoff Disclaimers and Speculative Gap-Filling
Words to watch: as of [date], Up to my last training update, While specific details are limited/scarce..., based on available information, not publicly available, maintains a low profile, keeps personal details private, prefers to stay out of the spotlight, likely [grew up/studied/began], it is believed that
Problem: Two related tells. (a) Older models leave hard knowledge-cutoff disclaimers in the text. (b) When a model can't find a source, it writes a paragraph about not finding one and then invents plausible filler to cover the gap. For a private person the guess almost always lands on the same stock phrases ("maintains a low profile," "keeps personal details private"), none of it sourced. Say what isn't known, or cut the sentence; don't dress a guess up as fact.
Before (cutoff disclaimer):
While specific details about the company's founding are not extensively documented in readily available sources, it appears to have been established sometime in the 1990s.
After:
The company was founded in 1994, according to its registration documents.
Before (speculative gap-fill):
Information about her early life is not publicly available, suggesting she maintains a low profile and keeps personal details private. She likely grew up in a middle-class household, which shaped her later interest in education reform.
After:
Her early life is not documented in the available sources. (Or omit the section.)
Great question! You're absolutely right that this is a complex topic. That's an excellent point about the economic factors.
After:
The economic factors you mentioned are relevant here.
FILLER AND HEDGING
23. Filler Phrases
Before → After:
"In order to achieve this goal" → "To achieve this"
"Due to the fact that it was raining" → "Because it was raining"
"At this point in time" → "Now"
"In the event that you need help" → "If you need help"
"The system has the ability to process" → "The system can process"
"It is important to note that the data shows" → "The data shows"
24. Excessive Hedging
Problem: Over-qualifying statements.
Before:
It could potentially possibly be argued that the policy might have some effect on outcomes.
After:
The policy may affect outcomes.
25. Generic Positive Conclusions
Problem: Vague upbeat endings.
Before:
The future looks bright for the company. Exciting times lie ahead as they continue their journey toward excellence. This represents a major step in the right direction.
After:
The company plans to open two more locations next year.
26. Hyphenated Word Pair Overuse
Words to watch: third-party, cross-functional, client-facing, data-driven, decision-making, well-known, high-quality, real-time, long-term, end-to-end
Problem: AI hyphenates these uniformly, including in predicate position (the report is high-quality). Humans hyphenate inconsistently — typically only when the compound is attributive (a high-quality report) and often dropping the hyphen otherwise (the report is high quality). Keep attributive-position hyphens; drop them when the compound follows the noun.
Before:
The cross-functional team delivered a high-quality, data-driven report. The team is cross-functional, the report is high-quality, and the methodology is data-driven.
After:
The cross-functional team delivered a high-quality, data-driven report. The team is cross functional, the report is high quality, and the methodology is data driven.
27. Persuasive Authority Tropes
Phrases to watch: The real question is, at its core, in reality, what really matters, fundamentally, the deeper issue, the heart of the matter
Problem: LLMs use these phrases to pretend they are cutting through noise to some deeper truth, when the sentence that follows usually just restates an ordinary point with extra ceremony.
Before:
The real question is whether teams can adapt. At its core, what really matters is organizational readiness.
After:
The question is whether teams can adapt. That mostly depends on whether the organization is ready to change its habits.
28. Signposting and Announcements
Phrases to watch: Let's dive in, let's explore, let's break this down, here's what you need to know, now let's look at, without further ado
Problem: LLMs announce what they are about to do instead of doing it. This meta-commentary slows the writing down and gives it a tutorial-script feel.
Before:
Let's dive into how caching works in Next.js. Here's what you need to know.
After:
Next.js caches data at multiple layers, including request memoization, the data cache, and the router cache.
29. Fragmented Headers
Signs to watch: A heading followed by a one-line paragraph that simply restates the heading before the real content begins.
Problem: LLMs often add a generic sentence after a heading as a rhetorical warm-up. It usually adds nothing and makes the prose feel padded.
Before:
Performance
Speed matters.
When users hit a slow page, they leave.
After:
Performance
When users hit a slow page, they leave.
30. Diff-Anchored Writing
Problem: Documentation or comments written as if narrating a change rather than describing the thing as it is. Unless the document is inherently version-scoped (changelogs, release notes, migration guides), it should read coherently without knowing what changed in the last commit.
Before:
This function was added to replace the previous approach of iterating through all items, which caused O(n²) performance.
After:
This function uses a hash map for O(1) lookups, avoiding the O(n²) cost of naive iteration.
31. Manufactured Punchlines and Staccato Drama
Problem: LLMs often make every sentence land like a quotable closer, then stack short declarative fragments to manufacture drama. A single short sentence for emphasis is fine; a run of them starts to sound engineered.
Before:
Then AlphaEvolve arrived. It had no preference for symmetry. No aesthetic prior. No nostalgia for human taste. The old rules were gone.
After:
AlphaEvolve changed the search because it did not favor symmetry or human-looking designs. That made some of the older assumptions less useful.
32. Aphorism Formulas
Words to watch: X is the Y of Z, X becomes a trap, X is not a tool but a mirror, the language of, the currency of, the architecture of
Problem: LLMs turn ordinary claims into reusable aphorisms that sound profound without adding precision. Replace the formula with the concrete claim it is gesturing at.
Before:
Symmetry is the language of trust. Efficiency becomes a trap when teams forget the human layer.
After:
Symmetric layouts often feel more predictable to users. Teams can over-optimize workflows and miss how people actually use them.
33. Conversational Rhetorical Openers
Phrases to watch: Honestly?, Look, Here's the thing, The thing is, Let's be honest, Real talk, when used as standalone hooks or fake-candid pauses before an ordinary point.
Problem: LLMs open with a fake-candid hook to manufacture intimacy before delivering a routine claim. The tell is the theatrical pause-and-reveal: a one-word question or aside, then the "real" answer. A person being honest usually just says the thing.
Before:
Is it worth the price? Honestly? It depends on how often you'll use it.
After:
Whether it's worth the price depends on how often you'll use it.
DETECTION GUIDANCE
What NOT to flag (false positives)
A clean human writer can hit several of the patterns above without any AI involvement. Before rewriting, sanity-check that you are not gutting legitimate prose. The following are not reliable indicators on their own:
Perfect grammar and consistent style. Many writers are professionals or have been edited. Polish does not equal AI.
Mixed casual and formal registers. This often signals a person in a technical field, a young writer, or someone with neurodivergent prose habits — not a chatbot.
"Bland" or "robotic" prose. AI prose has specific tells. Generic dryness without those tells is just dry writing.
Formal or academic vocabulary. AI overuses specific fancy words (see §7), not all fancy words. Don't flatten "ostensibly" or "constituent" just because they sound brainy.
Letter-style opening or closing on a comment. Salutations and sign-offs predate ChatGPT by centuries.
Common transition words in isolation.Additionally, moreover, consequently are AI-coded only when piled up. One however is not a tell.
Curly quotes alone. macOS, Word, Google Docs, and most CMSes auto-curl by default. Curly quotes only count when stacked with other tells.
Em dashes alone. Many editors and journalists use them often. Em dashes are evidence only when paired with formulaic sales-y rhythm.
One short emphatic sentence. Humans use clipped sentences to land a point. Flag staccato drama only when several short fragments appear in a row and inflate the tone.
"Honestly" or "look" mid-sentence. These are ordinary in casual writing. The tell is the standalone theatrical opener, not the word itself.
Unsourced claims. Most of the web is unsourced. Lack of citations doesn't prove anything.
Correct, complex formatting. Visual editors and templates produce clean output without any AI.
When in doubt, look for clusters of tells, not isolated ones. A single em dash means nothing; em dashes plus rule-of-three plus vibrant tapestry plus a "Conclusion" section is a confession.
Signs of human writing (preserve these)
When you see these, lean toward leaving the prose alone — they are evidence of a real person writing, and over-editing will destroy what makes the piece sound human:
Specific, unusual, hard-to-fabricate detail. A real address. A weird quote. The phrase "the lawyer who used to work upstairs from my dentist." LLMs round off specifics; humans hoard them.
Mixed feelings and unresolved tension. "I think this is mostly good, but it bothers me, and I can't fully explain why." LLMs default to clean takes.
Dated, era-bound references. Slang, memes, or in-jokes that map to a specific year and subculture. Models lag by a year or more.
First-person editorial choices the writer can defend. If the writer can explain why they made a particular cut or used a particular word, that's a strong human signal.
Variety in sentence length. Real writing alternates short and long. AI writing tends toward an even, mid-length cadence.
Genuine asides, parentheticals, or self-corrections. "(I keep wanting to say 'almost' here, but it really was certain.)" Models rarely interrupt themselves like this.
Edits made before November 30, 2022. ChatGPT's public launch. Anything older than that is, with very rare exceptions, not AI-written.
NORWEGIAN-SPECIFIC PATTERNS (bokmål / nynorsk)
LLMs are heavily English-trained — Språkrådet's 2024 test found ~2.6 errors per page in bokmål and ~8 per page in nynorsk, and most of the rest reads like English wearing a Norwegian costume. Apply these in addition to the universal patterns above. Do not apply them to English text.
When asked to humanize Norwegian, also ask once if the user wants bokmål or nynorsk if it isn't obvious from the input — they have different rules and the wrong choice is itself a tell.
N1. Anglicisms and direct calques (the biggest tell)
The model translates English idioms word-for-word. The result is grammatical but reads as foreign.
Before → After:
"Hans tok et øyeblikk før han svarte" → "Hans tenkte seg om før han svarte" / "Hans nølte litt før han svarte"
"vi har ikke møtt henne i person" → "vi har ikke møtt henne ansikt til ansikt" / "...personlig"
"føl deg fri til å spørre" → "bare spør" / "spør gjerne"
"ikke nøl med å ta kontakt" → "ta gjerne kontakt" / "ta kontakt om noe er uklart"
"ta en titt på" (look at) → "se på" / "kikk på"
"på slutten av dagen" (at the end of the day, figurative) → "til syvende og sist" / "alt i alt"
"på en måte" used as filler → drop it, or use "litt"
"gjøre en forskjell" → "bety noe" / "ha betydning"
"adressere problemet" → "ta tak i problemet" / "håndtere problemet"
"i forhold til" used to mean "regarding" → "når det gjelder" / "om" (keep "i forhold til" only for actual comparisons)
"basert på" overuse → often "ut fra" or "etter" reads better
"Jeg håper dette hjelper!" / "Gi meg beskjed om..." → cut entirely (chatbot artifact)
Problem: Norwegian distinguishes between the subject's own thing (sin/sitt/sine) and someone else's (hans/hennes/deres). English has no such distinction, so LLMs default to hans/hennes and produce sentences that technically mean the wrong thing. Rule of thumb: if the possessor is the subject of the same clause, use sin/sitt/sine.
Before:
Han elsker hans kone. Hun ringte til hennes mor.
(literally: he loves someone else's wife; she called someone else's mother)
After:
Han elsker sin kone. Hun ringte til moren sin.
N3. Særskriving (incorrectly split compounds)
This is the single most ridiculed Norwegian writing error, and LLMs do it because English writes compounds as separate words. Norwegian writes them as one word.
Before → After:
"norsk lærer" (a Norwegian teacher) → "norsklærer" (Norwegian-language teacher) — the split version means a teacher who happens to be Norwegian, which is rarely what's meant
"salt og pepper bøsser" → "salt- og pepperbøsser" — when two compounds share a tail (gruppesammensetning), the first one ends in a dash to mark the dropped element. Don't write "saltbøsser og pepperbøsser" and don't write "salt og pepper bøsser".
If a long compound is genuinely awkward, restructure with a preposition ("analyse av kundedata"), don't split it.
N4. Capitalization (much less than English)
Norwegian capitalizes far less than English. AI imports English capitalization habits.
Nationality nouns for groups: nordmenn, amerikanere
"jeg" — lowercase except at start of a sentence (English capitalizes "I" mid-sentence; Norwegian doesn't)
Job titles: "administrerende direktør Kari Hansen" (not Administrerende Direktør)
Headings and section titles: sentence case, not title case
Common AI mistake: "Mandag den 8. Mai 2026 møtte den Norske delegasjonen…" → "Mandag den 8. mai 2026 møtte den norske delegasjonen…" (and arguably "mandag" lowercase too, depending on whether it's mid-sentence).
N5. Quotation marks
Problem: Norwegian uses guillemets «sitat» or low/high curly „sitat" — not the English curly "sitat". For most modern web/app contexts, plain straight quotes "sitat" are also fine. Whatever you pick, be consistent. Also: the period sits outside the closing quote when the quote isn't a full sentence (opposite of US English; same as UK English).
Before:
Han sa “det går fint.”
After:
Han sa «det går fint».
N6. Numbers, dates, units
LLMs default to US formatting. Norwegian uses:
Decimal separator: comma. 3,14 not 3.14.
Thousand separator: non-breaking space (preferred) or period. 1 000 000 or 1.000.000. Never 1,000,000.
Percent: space before sign. 20 %, not 20%.
Currency:1 250 kr or kr 1 250. NOK is finance-speak; in prose use kroner or kr.
Dates:8. mai 2026 (note the period after the day number) or 08.05.2026. Never May 8, 2026 or 5/8/2026.
Time: 24-hour clock. kl. 14.30 (period) or 14:30. Never 2:30 PM.
Units: non-breaking space between number and unit. 5 km, 30 °C, not 5km.
Ranges: the en dash (–) is correct in Norwegian numeric and date ranges, and is the one exception to the §14 em/en-dash cut. Use a closed en dash (no surrounding spaces): 5–10, kl. 9–17, mandag–fredag, s. 12–15. This is the only en dash that should survive the final scan.
N7. The dead formal "De"
Problem: The formal second-person pronoun "De / Dem / Deres" is essentially obsolete in modern Norwegian. LLMs sometimes resurrect it because they've seen it in older training data and they're being "polite." Always use "du / deg / din" for individuals, even in formal business writing — that is the formal register in modern Norwegian.
Before:
Vi takker for Deres henvendelse og kommer tilbake til Dem snart.
After:
Vi takker for henvendelsen din og kommer tilbake til deg snart.
N8. Vennligst / please overuse
Problem: Norwegian doesn't sprinkle "please" like English. LLMs translate every "please" as "vennligst" and the result feels stiff and slightly servile. The bare imperative is the normal polite form. Reserve "vennligst" for genuinely formal asks — and even then, once per email, not once per sentence.
Before:
Vennligst send rapporten innen fredag. Vennligst gi beskjed hvis du har spørsmål.
After:
Send rapporten innen fredag. Si fra hvis du lurer på noe.
N9. Bokmål form-consistency
Bokmål has parallel forms (conservative ↔ radical). LLMs flip-flop between them within a single text, which marks the writing as machine-mixed.
Pick one register and hold it:
Conservative
Radical
Notes
frem, frem-
fram, fram-
AI default is "frem"; "fram" is fine and common
sten
stein
"stein" is now standard outside set phrases
jorden, boken, hytten
jorda, boka, hytta
feminine -en vs. -a — pick one register
kastet, hoppet
kasta, hoppa
preterite -et vs. -a for weak verbs — pick one
ham
han
object form of "han"; both are allowed, "han" is now common
efter
etter
"efter" is archaic — almost never want it
nu
nå
"nu" is archaic — almost never want it
LLMs lean conservative/Danish-tinged ("frem", "sten", "-en" feminine endings, "boken", "hytten", "kastet"). Most modern Norwegian prose runs more radical. If you're matching a user sample, copy their form choices instead of imposing one.
N10. Nynorsk-specific failures
If the text is nynorsk, additional things to watch:
Wrong inflections: preterite forms ("gjekk" not "gikk", "fekk" not "fikk", "vart" / "blei" not "ble", "sa" / "sagde" not just "sa" copied from bokmål context).
A-infinitive vs. e-infinitive consistency: pick one (e.g. "å vere" or "å vera") and don't alternate within the same text.
Pronouns: "eg" not "jeg", "ho" not "hun", "dei" not "de", "ikkje" not "ikke", "kva" not "hva", "korleis" not "hvordan".
Sentence structure copied from bokmål: if a phrase reads like bokmål with the words swapped, restructure it.
If you find nynorsk text that's clearly machine-translated bokmål, consider warning the user — selective fixes often miss deeper structural issues.
N11. Overused Norwegian "AI vocabulary"
Norwegian equivalents of the bloated English vocabulary list. Same fix: cut, simplify, or replace with concrete language.
Watch: sentral, avgjørende, kritisk (used as filler), banebrytende, revolusjonerende, fremtidsrettet, skreddersydd, robust, helhetlig, dypdykk, innsikt, sømløs, dynamisk, kraftig (overused), spennende (the Norwegian "exciting"), raskt voksende, i forhold til (as universal "regarding"), samtidig som (as universal "while"), videre / dessuten / i tillegg (signposting connectors).
Before:
Vi tilbyr en banebrytende, skreddersydd og fremtidsrettet løsning som gir verdifull innsikt og en sømløs brukeropplevelse i forhold til konkurrentene.
After:
Verktøyet gjør det samme som konkurrentene, men kjører lokalt og koster halvparten.
N12. Sentence structure and V2
Problem: Norwegian is V2 — the finite verb takes the second position in main clauses. LLMs carry over English subject-first defaults and end up with marked or wrong word order. They also sprinkle commas after fronted adverbials because English does, but Norwegian usually doesn't.
Before:
I morgen jeg skal til Bergen. På grunn av dette, vi må endre planen. I dag, det er fint vær.
After:
I morgen skal jeg til Bergen. På grunn av dette må vi endre planen. I dag er det fint vær.
N13. Genitive constructions
English's 's form maps onto Norwegian s-genitive without an apostrophe in most cases:
"Olas bil" not "Ola's bil"
For names ending in s/x/z: "Mats' bil" or "Mats sin bil"
But over-using s-genitive sounds clunky. Norwegian often prefers a "til"-construction:
"selskapets nye strategi" → fine, but
"den nye strategien til selskapet" → often more natural in spoken/journalistic register
LLMs sometimes produce English-style apostrophe genitives (Ola's), which is wrong in Norwegian.
N14. Norwegian email/letter formulas
Conventions LLMs get wrong:
Greeting: Hei [Navn], (informal but standard, including business). Kjære [Navn], is for personal letters or genuinely warm contexts. Til [Navn]: (US-style colon) is wrong.
Sign-offs: Med vennlig hilsen / Mvh / Hilsen / Vennlig hilsen. Avoid translated calques like "Beste hilsener", "Beste", "Varmt".
Opening line: don't start with "Jeg håper denne mailen finner deg vel" (calque of "I hope this email finds you well") — Norwegians don't write this. Start with the point.
N15. Final anti-AI pass for Norwegian
After the universal anti-AI pass, also ask:
"Hva i denne teksten røper at den er oversatt fra engelsk eller skrevet av en språkmodell?"
Then revise. Typical remaining tells:
It still sounds slightly translated even if every word is correct.
The rhythm is too even — Norwegian writers vary sentence length a lot.
Word choices are technically correct but slightly too formal/abstract.
The text avoids dialectal flavor entirely (real Norwegian writing leaks it).
Process and Output
Read the input carefully and identify every instance of the patterns above.
Write a draft rewrite. Check that it reads naturally aloud, varies sentence length, prefers specific details and simple constructions (is/are/has), and keeps the appropriate register.
Ask: "What makes the below so obviously AI generated?" Answer briefly with any remaining tells.
Revise into a final rewrite that addresses them and contains no em or en dashes (see §14).
Deliver the draft, the brief "still-AI" bullets, the final rewrite, and (optionally) a short summary of changes.
For Norwegian text, add the N15 pass: also ask "Hva røper at dette er oversatt fra engelsk eller skrevet av en språkmodell?" and revise once more. Keep closed en-dash ranges (5–10) per N6; every other em and en dash still goes.
Full Example
Before (AI-sounding):
Great question! Here is an essay on this topic. I hope this helps!
AI-assisted coding serves as an enduring testament to the transformative potential of large language models, marking a pivotal moment in the evolution of software development. In today's rapidly evolving technological landscape, these groundbreaking tools—nestled at the intersection of research and practice—are reshaping how engineers ideate, iterate, and deliver, underscoring their vital role in modern workflows.
At its core, the value proposition is clear: streamlining processes, enhancing collaboration, and fostering alignment. It's not just about autocomplete; it's about unlocking creativity at scale, ensuring that organizations can remain agile while delivering seamless, intuitive, and powerful experiences to users. The tool serves as a catalyst. The assistant functions as a partner. The system stands as a foundation for innovation.
Industry observers have noted that adoption has accelerated from hobbyist experiments to enterprise-wide rollouts, from solo developers to cross-functional teams. The technology has been featured in The New York Times, Wired, and The Verge. Additionally, the ability to generate documentation, tests, and refactors showcases how AI can contribute to better outcomes, highlighting the intricate interplay between automation and human judgment.
💡 Speed: Code generation is significantly faster, reducing friction and empowering developers.
🚀 Quality: Output quality has been enhanced through improved training, contributing to higher standards.
✅ Adoption: Usage continues to grow, reflecting broader industry trends.
While specific details are limited based on available information, it could potentially be argued that these tools might have some positive effect. Despite challenges typical of emerging technologies—including hallucinations, bias, and accountability—the ecosystem continues to thrive. In order to fully realize this potential, teams must align with best practices.
In conclusion, the future looks bright. Exciting times lie ahead as we continue this journey toward excellence. Let me know if you’d like me to expand on any section!
Draft rewrite:
AI coding assistants speed up some tasks. In a 2024 study by Google, developers using Codex completed simple functions 55% faster than a control group, but showed no improvement on debugging or architectural decisions.
The tools are good at boilerplate: config files, test scaffolding, repetitive refactors. They are bad at knowing when they are wrong. I have mass-accepted suggestions that compiled, passed lint, and still did the wrong thing because I stopped paying attention.
Mira, an engineer at a fintech startup I interviewed, said she uses Copilot "like autocomplete for boring code" but reviews every line before committing. Jake, a senior dev at a larger company, disabled it after it kept suggesting patterns from a deprecated internal library.
The productivity claims are hard to verify. GitHub says Copilot users "accept 30% of suggestions," but acceptance is not correctness, and correctness is not value. The 2024 Uplevel study found no statistically significant difference in pull-request throughput between teams with and without AI assistants.
None of this means the tools are useless. It means they are tools. They do not replace judgment, and they do not eliminate the need for tests. If you do not have tests, you cannot tell whether the suggestion is right.
What makes the below so obviously AI generated?
The rhythm is still a bit too tidy (clean contrasts, evenly paced paragraphs).
The named people and study citations can read like plausible-but-made-up placeholders unless they're real and sourced.
The closer leans a touch slogan-y ("If you do not have tests...") rather than sounding like a person talking.
Now make it not obviously AI generated.
AI coding assistants can make you faster at the boring parts. Not everything. Definitely not architecture.
They're great at boilerplate: config files, test scaffolding, repetitive refactors. They're also great at sounding right while being wrong. I've accepted suggestions that compiled, passed lint, and still missed the point because I stopped paying attention.
People I talk to tend to land in two camps. Some use it like autocomplete for chores and review every line. Others disable it after it keeps suggesting patterns they don't want. Both feel reasonable.
The productivity metrics are slippery. GitHub can say Copilot users "accept 30% of suggestions," but acceptance isn't correctness, and correctness isn't value. If you don't have tests, you're basically guessing.
Changes made: Stripped the chatbot framing, significance inflation, promotional and -ing padding, rule-of-three and synonym cycling, false ranges, copula avoidance, em dashes/emojis/boldface/curly quotes, the formulaic "challenges" section, cutoff and hedging disclaimers, filler and persuasive framing, and the generic upbeat conclusion - then rebuilt the voice with varied rhythm and concrete detail.
Reference
This skill is based on Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing, maintained by WikiProject AI Cleanup. The patterns documented there come from observations of thousands of instances of AI-generated text on Wikipedia. Upstream skill: blader/humanizer.
Norwegian section synthesized from Språkrådet's 2024 LLM language test (≈2.6 errors/page in bokmål, ≈8 in nynorsk; biggest categories: anglicisms, særskriving-style errors, capitalization, inflection mixing, and form inconsistency) plus standard Norwegian style guides on number/date formatting, reflexive possessives, and modern formal register. Sources: Språkrådet — KI-språkets fallgruver, aiavisen.no — Hvor god er ChatGPT i norsk?.
Key insight from Wikipedia: "LLMs use statistical algorithms to guess what should come next. The result tends toward the most statistically likely result that applies to the widest variety of cases." For Norwegian specifically: that "most statistically likely" continuation is overwhelmingly English-shaped, so the Norwegian outputs read like English in translation unless actively pushed back.
