I’ve spent the last few weeks obsessing over why most AI writing feels like a "digital uncanny valley." It’s usually too balanced, too polite, and uses words that nobody actually says in a real conversation.

After running about 50 split tests against AI detectors and (more importantly) actual human readers, I’ve put together a framework to force the model out of its "corporate shell."

The "Human-Sync" Rules

To get better results, I’ve started injecting these specific constraints into my system prompts:

• The "Messy Logic" Rule: Tell the AI to use varying sentence lengths. Most AI defaults to a rhythmic, medium length. Force it to follow a long, descriptive sentence with a three-word punchy one.
• Vocabulary Blacklist: I’ve banned the "AI Starter Pack" words. If the output contains delve, leverage, foster, or tapestry, the prompt is instructed to rewrite the entire paragraph.
• The 9th Grade Ceiling: I ask the model to explain concepts as if it’s talking to a coworker at a pub, not a professor at a seminar. This naturally strips away the "hollow polish" that triggers detectors.
• Intentional Imperfection: I occasionally tell the AI to use a sentence fragment or start a sentence with "And" or "But." It breaks the "perfect grammar" pattern that makes bots so obvious.

Example Prompt Logic

Instead of asking for a "professional summary," I now use:

"Write this as a direct internal memo. Use active voice only. If a sentence feels like it belongs in a marketing brochure, delete it. Keep the tone sharp, slightly skeptical, and focused on utility."