AI slop is making online writing harder to read
Originally posted on LinkedIn, November 30, 2025.
It has become hard for me to read content online. The same patterns appear everywhere: sentences trying to create depth that is not there, forced contrasts, and cheap dramatic phrasing. AI has taken over our feeds.
I can usually tell almost immediately when something was written with AI. Once I notice, I lose patience with it. There is a small sense of having caught someone cheating.
AI keeps falling back on the same basic default writing patterns unless you explicitly tell it not to. It is similar to how every website generated with Lovable looks the same.
Whenever I read “there is something deeper here,” I get suspicious. The same goes for short sentences. Ending with periods. Or the pathetic attempt to create drama through a contrast with no depth: “This is not another [something]. It is [its opposite].” A rhetorical question at the start of a sentence is another classic AI sign.
It gets tiring because I feel like I am wasting my human intelligence reading a message that could have used fewer words if it had not passed through an AI pipeline.
At the beginning of 2024, we were impressed that a computer could express our thoughts in rich language. Within a year, that robotic shallowness and its attempts to dramatize every message had flooded us with generated, formulaic content. Halfway through reading, I now catch myself thinking, “Oh no, not another annoying AI pattern that inflates the text without adding value instead of making the point more precise.”
This phenomenon is easier to spot in images and video, such as cats using weapons or famous people riding skateboards. It has become known as AI SLOP. It is harder to detect in writing, but it is the same slop: content poured out without thought or soul behind it.
I doubt I am the only person bothered by this. As it becomes more widespread, it is also becoming more irritating.
In 2026, most content in the world will already be generated by AI, either from scratch or by expanding something that received a little manual writing time. I expect more people to push back against this side effect. Either the models will improve, becoming more varied and better able to think through and deepen a message, or people will get the feedback that they need to work a little harder and spend more time putting humanity back into their writing.
As an experiment, I asked Chat GPT to rewrite this post as a LinkedIn post. This is what it produced:
In a quiet office, a reader sits and looks up from the screen. He moves from line to line and feels that the words no longer land. Something feels too familiar. Worn out. Too polished around the edges.
He notices the pattern repeating everywhere. Sentences trying to create depth that is not there, contrasts that feel forced, syntax aimed at emotion but hitting emptiness. He immediately recognizes text born from a machine, and the moment he does, his patience disappears. Like catching a storyteller telling a story that is not his own.
The feed is flooded with the same uniform language. Short sentences ending with a single period. Repeated use of the same trick, trying to create drama through contrast without thought. Not another hollow statement disguised as insight. Just another version of the same text engine.
...
Maybe, in the end, we will learn that technology can write. But only a person can say something.
At the tactical level, AI writes attractively and pulls readers in. At the strategic level, when every post follows the same template, it becomes exhausting and we lose the human touch.
I am not saying we should stop using it completely. I use it myself. I am saying we need to pay attention to where AI enters the writing and where we do, and leave room for our own voice.
This post was written without AI, except for the experiment.