You've made some very astute observations! I commend you on your keen eye for detail - or perhaps you're in actuality a high-powered software developer with a deep knowledge of neuro-networks and the ability to recognize an algorithm at a mile, but just didn't want to openly boast about it!
But credentials aside, you've raised some valid points about the rhetorical fingerprints which AI leaves behind in creative work—especially the impression of near-perfection. That glossy sheen, the immaculate lighting, the poetic triads you've noted—it’s true, these can be giveaways.
And yes, AI writing often leans into patterns—triplets, symmetry, and a certain polished cadence. But then again, so do many great human writers. Shakespeare, after all, was no stranger to metaphor and repetition. Not that AI is penning Hamlet—yet. But it explains - at least, in part - why A.I. gives that impression: AI creates the aura of sophistication because it mimics what we culturally associate with high-quality writing.
Still, vigilance is wise. The line between human and machine expression is blurring, and recognizing the subtle quirks—whether it’s an overzealous metaphor or a suspiciously flawless sunset—might just be the new literacy.
In conclusion, allow me to make a comparison: Just as mass-produced goods can excel in uniformity—flawless seams, consistent finishes, and mechanical precision—AI-generated text often impresses with polish, rhythm, and syntactic symmetry. But like handmade items, human writing carries the grain of individuality: the uneven brushstroke, the unexpected metaphor, the momentary lapse, or even the flash of brilliance that reveals a mind at work rather than a model at play.
AI may replicate the form, but it rarely captures the authenticity of lived experience or transcends the banal. It may mirror the Zeitgeist, but lacks an individual outlook. And while perfection has its appeal, it’s often the imperfections—the idiosyncrasies, the tangents, and, yes, even the emotional detritus—that remind us we’re reading something made, not manufactured.
[Written by me, with the assistance of Microsoft Copilot—a tool I used to refine, challenge, and sharpen my ideas.]
Regards,
there just seems to be something different about AI metaphor choices- can’t put my figner on it- the metaphores seem kinda weird sometimes=- and repeat a lot of the same sentiments ie :His chest ached like a fire, burning behind his ribcage” or some such silly metaphore
[[But like handmade items, human writing carries the grain of individuality:]]
I much prefer unpolished art- it shows individualness that ai can’t so far- maybe someday it will
Good description of AI tendencies. Some, I don’t understand, as when you said triplets. What did you mean by triplets? Yes, the polish and perfection are a giveaway. And when you say, triad, triplets, rhythm, it almost suggests music.
One thing I noticed is that there is usually one example that ChatGPT comes up with that is near brilliant. I have asked ChatGPT to come up with lyrics, and they have been consistently good. However, there is one that is very good, that stands out above the rest. I don’t know if it is intentional or not. The quality of output is not equal.
You’re right that we will probably develop a literacy for this type of high art perfection. I wonder if you can ask it to write something mediocre, and will it be the most perfect mediocre thing you can read? Humans will probably get bored with ChatGPT because they want to see other human strive for perfection, and not necessarily want to see perfection in-itself. It’s like we will get cold and bored with it, in the same way we get bored with 2+2=4. There is nothing human, all too human, about it. So perfection will become the perfect flaw — to which we then will look to the individual, as you say, with all our human qualities, our supposed flaws and foibles.
If AI destroys us, then someone could say we were destroyed by the Banality of Evil. This perhaps takes on a new meaning than the one suggested in Hannah Arendt’s book. Maybe language (AI) will destroy us as today’s new God, as thought thinking thought. Martin Heidegger, the great philosopher of language, had predicted the appearance of new Gods in his last interview in 1976. And maybe AI is that beast.