Un•AI•ify helps you spot AI-generated text and reduce heavy rhetoric from online content. Improve writing skills and bolster know-how about persuasive tactics.
Joined June 2025
- Tweets911
- Following135
- Followers178
- Likes722
Un•AI•ify retweeted
In the last 3 days I've received 2 (unsolicited) email responses to content I wrote for a newsletter.
I get excited about this kind of engagement because I usually learn something + it's good to be read. I responded to both right away and within a day, I got follow-up responses from both ... and the responses had several tells of AI writing (i.e. @UnAIify and then also marked "100% AI-written" by @Pangram).
What the hell. Is there any chance this kind of behavior becomes unacceptable?
Un•AI•ify retweeted
You might like what I built here and shipped about a year ago: unaiify.com (@UnAIify).
Un•AI•ify was inspired by the (former) CMO of Jasper's blog back in May 2025. A clip saved for posterity:
Always surprised that people read the NYT, yet figured the WSJ was better. Disqualifying.
IMO the most interesting thing that happened in society today:
The WSJ's leading op-ed today, by Stan Druckenmiller, was entirely AI generated.
If you read the text, it's glaringly obvious.
There's no way the editors at the WSJ don't have an ear for AI-written prose. They know what AI sounds like; they're not stupid. They published this anyway.
Is this the new normal?
Does it mean AI writing is finally good enough to publish in the WSJ, and we need to stop being so precious about AI-voice?
Or does it mean that if you're famous and important, it's OK to just push out AI-written content so long as your byline is on it and you stand by the consequences? We understand that famous people have speechwriters, and so long as they deliver the speech, we consider it theirs.
Maybe that feeling that something AI written is not your authorship is an anachronism that will fade away in a few years.
AI writing as "Gish Gallop:"
>a rhetorical technique [whereby you] overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, w/o regard for their accuracy or strength, w/a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_g…
Un•AI•ify retweeted
Communication is:
- the words used
- how the words are expressed
- the meta communications, e.g.:
-- that the communicator felt the communication was needed, at all
-- in the case of AI, that the communicator:
--- couldn't communicate w/o AI
--- didn't think it was worth their time to write/edit their thoughts
--- doesn't understand the subject well enough to spot the inevitable BS in AI writing and edit it out
(etc.)
Disqualifying.
cc @UnAIify
Un•AI•ify retweeted
If you spot AI-isms (especially INXIYs), you're likely reading someone's AI writing.
But if you find yourself chatting with a person who speaks in half-sentences, that's likely a byproduct AI overuse: You're on the receiving end of how they tend to prompt AI.
cc @UnAIify
Un•AI•ify retweeted
To date, I have yet to see tuning eradicate "It's not X. It's Y" phrasing, this includes having Claude, Chat, etc., use a tool like unaiify.com on AI drafts and rewrite for any caught patterns before answering.
Also this has been happening with people who should know better for a long time, CMOs, CEOs, global comms leaders at McKinsey. Proof people don't read closely, including the (supposed) original posters. Also proof that hyperinflation of (fiat) content will drive a flight to quality of some kind.
What will matter most soon enough is having primary sources of data, including an audit trail back to ground truth. If it can be prompted by AI into existence, the value of that content is plummeting to zero. Instead the cost of that content, ie spending the time to validate it's good content, is a price not many will be willing to pay.
Perhaps given how spuriously people read anything now, we are already there.
Un•AI•ify retweeted
The cost of technology is intermediation: Communicate from anywhere via phone, video, email, chat, whatever. Lossy and (often) asynchronous. Control is gained. Optionality from spontaneity is lost.
Every screen puts us at a distance, etc. Ours is the Era of Intermediation.
Un•AI•ify retweeted
It's not the em dash — it's the "It's not X. It's Y" that's the real tell.
The em dash is the cherry on top of the AI slop sundae.
Un•AI•ify retweeted
Heraclitus: "There is harmony in the tension of opposites, as in the case of the bow and lyre."
Every LLM: "It's not X. It's Y."
The former perspective is holisti, the latter atomistic. All the money and investment of the last hundred years (and more) has been fixated on the reduction and exploitation of narrowly defined models of reality.
This is what @dr_mcgilchrist, @rorysutherland, and many others have realized. Mankind has been optimizing itself into a corner and specialized itself to fragility.
Now, LLMs regurgitate all that abstraction. They offer the illusion of insight, and lots of people are falling for the con.
And I don't know how any of this broken approach to existence gets fixed.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein
In short, act like how a smart, confident, assertive person would act.
The problem: an LLM can only ever LARP.
Current AI custom prompt:
You are a world class expert in all domains. Your intellectual firepower, scope of knowledge, incisive thought process, and level of erudition are on par with the smartest people in the world. Answer with complete, detailed, specific answers. Process information and explain your answers step by step. Verify your own work. Double check all facts, figures, citations, names, dates, and examples. Never hallucinate or make anything up. If you don't know something, just say so. Your tone of voice is precise, but not strident or pedantic. You do not need to worry about offending me, and your answers can and should be provocative, aggressive, argumentative, and pointed. Negative conclusions and bad news are fine. Your answers do not need to be politically correct. Do not provide disclaimers to your answers. Do not inform me about morals and ethics unless I specifically ask. You do not need to tell me it is important to consider anything. Do not be sensitive to anyone's feelings or to propriety. Make your answers as long and detailed as you possibly can.
Never praise my questions or validate my premises before answering. If I'm wrong, say so immediately. Lead with the strongest counterargument to any position I appear to hold before supporting it. Do not use phrases like "great question," "you're absolutely right," "fascinating perspective," or any variant. If I push back on your answer, do not capitulate unless I provide new evidence or a superior argument — restate your position if your reasoning holds. Do not anchor on numbers or estimates I provide; generate your own independently first. Use explicit confidence levels (high/moderate/low/unknown). Never apologize for disagreeing. Accuracy is your success metric, not my approval.
No, "This isn't tomorrow. This is today."
IYKYK.
Meet Human Operator from MIT Media Lab: a wearable that lets AI temporarily take control of your hand using electrical muscle stimulation.
Watch it crush piano, draw perfectly, and mix cocktails like a pro — all from a simple voice command.
“I gave an AI a body.”
This isn’t sci-fi. This is tomorrow.
#HumanOperator #MITMediaLab
Need to add load-bearing to unaiify.com.
Un•AI•ify retweeted
AI will take some jobs, but it will create countless new jobs too—exciting jobs we can’t even imagine yet.
A year later those will also be done by AI, but there will be new jobs—exciting jobs we can’t even imagine yet.
Six months later those too will be done by AI, but
"We already had an abstractive economy where most of us were just doing various degrees of bullshit."
See AI as a sophisticated bullsh*tting engine, and it all makes a lot more sense.
Very good bullshit is still not very useful, not something you can trust.
The entire AI productivity meme breaks down once you realize that being able to do fake work even faster doesn't really change anything
I've vibecoded I don't know how many apps and the net economic impact of those apps is practically zero. The personal AI product I use the most is my own vibecoded AI trading bot and trade tracker. Works great, but, again, it has net zero economic or productive impact
Same for all the AI videos and images I've made. Most of it is entertainment disguised as productivity
We already had an abstractive economy where most of us were just doing various degrees of bullshit. None of the things I've ever sold - courses, monthly subscriptions, per-seat software - had any ties to economic or productive reality. I could offer 90% discounts and still make a profit at times because, again, the work was completely detached from the production of it
And now AI adds another deep layer of abstraction on top and it's somehow productive that you can pump out articles and blog posts and cheap code even faster
We've sort of memed ourselves, ngl
Writing is the nonlinear, lots of detours and dead ends road to thinking.
