Creative quality
Give the model a reason to be specific.
Write AI-assisted text in your own voice with concrete details and before-and-after examples. Learn why typical AI phrasing and detector scores do not prove authorship.
Updated
Generic output usually starts with interchangeable inputs
If the company name can be replaced without changing the message, the brief probably lacks a differentiator. Collect a customer phrase, a surprising observation, a useful product detail or a real constraint. Those facts create material a competitor cannot copy unchanged.
For a bicycle repair shop, ‘excellent service’ is broad. ‘We explain the repair before you approve it’ gives the writer a concrete promise—provided the business actually does that.
Review this brief for interchangeable claims. Ask me five questions that would reveal a specific customer problem, a credible advantage or an unusual detail. Do not write the campaign until we have evidence for at least one distinctive direction.
Ask for different arguments
Request a practical route, an emotional route and a surprising but relevant route. Then compare them against the same audience need. Ten variations of a broad slogan create volume without a useful choice.
Give three concepts for [brief]: one based on the customer's practical obstacle, one on a specific emotional tension and one using a concrete product detail. Explain why each is relevant. Reject concepts that depend on unsupported claims or familiar category clichés.
Use references and counterexamples
Show a sentence that sounds right and one that sounds wrong. Explain the distinction. A ban on clichés alone can produce stiff prose; a positive reference shows what good sounds like. For visuals, define the desired composition and what you find overused about the reference you dislike.
Here is a good example: [example]. Here is a near miss: [example]. Identify the observable difference, then revise [draft] using that distinction. Keep the concrete details and remove vague praise.
Use a specificity test before publishing
Ask which statements could describe any organisation in the category. Replace them with evidence or remove them. Read the result aloud and check whether the surprising part is still understandable. Originality that hides the offer can damage the work.
Mark every sentence in this draft that could belong to a competitor. For each, suggest a fact we should supply or a more concrete wording supported by the brief. Then assess whether the opening answers a real reader question.
Write like a person with something specific to say
Do not start with ‘make this sound human’. Give the writer a reader, a reason for writing, facts only you can supply and examples of your normal voice. If you have an actual opinion, state it and its limits. If you do not, ask questions that help you form one rather than inventing a provocative stance.
Remove throat-clearing openings, vague praise and repetitive conclusions when they do not serve the reader. Vary sentence length where meaning calls for it, not according to a mechanical formula. Keep useful technical terms and necessary qualifications. Natural does not always mean casual, short or grammatically imperfect.
Edit this draft for [reader and purpose]. Use these approved facts [facts] and my own writing sample [sample]. Preserve my argument, uncertainty and level of formality. Mark empty openings, vague claims and repeated conclusions, then make focused edits. Ask for a real example where the text needs substance. Do not invent personal experiences, add deliberate errors or imitate another person's identity. Show substantive changes separately from stylistic edits.
Before and after: substance beats a humanising instruction
Illustrative weak copy: ‘In today's fast-paced world, our innovative bicycle solutions empower you to embrace a seamless journey.’ It does not say what the shop offers or what the reader should do. That is a quality problem, regardless of who wrote it.
Illustrative revision using an approved offer: ‘Book a 30-minute bike check for €29. We check the brakes, tyres and lights. Repairs and parts cost extra.’ The improvement comes from the actual service, price and boundary, not from concealing AI use. Those facts must be verified before any real business publishes the copy.
Rewrite this draft [draft] around the reader's practical question [question]. Approved facts: [facts]. Start with the useful answer instead of a broad statement about the modern world. Replace abstract claims with supported details. Keep the offer and exclusions exact. If a needed detail is absent, leave a question for me instead of making one up. Return one concise draft and a list of facts I must confirm.
Can you recognise an AI-written text? Not from these clues alone
Generic introductions, over-neat lists, repeated transitions, broad enthusiasm and a conclusion that repeats the opening can make text feel machine-like. Treat these as editing clues, not a diagnostic checklist. Humans use these patterns too, and AI-assisted drafts may be heavily revised. A word such as ‘delve’, a dash or a polished sentence does not establish authorship.
A 2023 study by Liang and colleagues found misclassification of non-native English writing by the detectors it evaluated. A 2026 study by Al Ali and colleagues, in a Czech-language setting, found no systematic non-native bias in its tested detectors. These are different evaluations, not a single accuracy figure for all current tools. Results depend on the detector, language and evaluated material.
Do not turn a detector score into a personal probability or use it alone to accuse a student, colleague or applicant. If authorship matters, follow the relevant policy, discuss the drafting process respectfully and consider voluntarily provided notes or revision history. Missing drafts are not proof of AI use. Check factual support and usefulness separately from origin.
Review this text for concrete editorial issues, not authorship. Identify vague claims, repetitive structure, unnecessary transitions, missing evidence and a mismatch with [reader and purpose]. Quote each passage and explain its effect. Do not assign an AI-written percentage or infer who wrote it from style. Suggest focused revisions that preserve the facts and the writer's intent.
Do not confuse originality with evading a detector
The aim is writing you can stand behind: accurate, useful and recognisably yours. Do not add fake anecdotes, invented interviews or deliberate mistakes to create an appearance of human authorship. Retain any disclosure your school, employer, publisher or client requires. A smoother draft does not remove that obligation.
Common questions
Will asking AI to be creative make the result original?
It can broaden the output, but it does not provide a distinctive idea. Specific evidence, a real audience tension and contrasting concept routes give creativity something to work with.
Can I recognise AI writing from certain words or punctuation?
Not reliably. Those features can be useful editing clues, but humans use them too and their presence does not prove AI authorship.
Should I add mistakes to make AI text sound human?
No. Improve the substance, voice and fit for the reader. Do not manufacture errors or personal experiences, and keep any required AI-use disclosure.
Keep exploring
Sources and editorial note
Guidance checked 9 October 2026. These AI-assisted guides and original templates are reviewed against the linked sources. Results depend on your inputs and available tools. Model recommendations are editorial starting points, not comparative test results.