Reading the Signs of AI Writing, and Why They Are Not a Silver Bullet

There is a great Wikipedia page titled Signs of AI writing. It offers a field guide for editors and readers who want to spot text that may have been generated by artificial intelligence. If you work with content, especially online content, it is worth your time to read it in full (although it's pretty long).

The page grew out of very specific problems inside Wikipedia. Volunteers began seeing large volumes of text that looked polished at first glance yet caused trouble on closer inspection. Articles passed basic checks for grammar and structure but felt oddly empty (e.g. facts were vague, sources did not hold up). Editing them took longer than writing fresh material. From that context came a list of recurring characteristics that experienced editors noticed again and again.

One of the most obvious themes is tone. AI written text often sounds confident and neutral in a way that avoids any kind of risk. Sentences are grammatically tidy and carry a calm authority, but they rarely show the small imperfections and preferences that come from a human author with a point of view.

Another aspect the article highlights is generality. AI systems are very good at covering the centre of a topic and much worse at inhabiting its edges. They describe things in broad categories, restate definitions, and move quickly from one accepted idea to the next. What is missing are specifics that usually come from lived experience or original research. Dates, figures, names, and concrete examples may appear, but they are often either shallow or wrong. Wikipedia editors noticed that some of these details look plausible enough to pass a casual read while failing basic verification.

Another red flag discussed is the use of sources. AI generated text may reference studies, books, or articles that do not exist, or that exist but do not support the claim being made. This is not malice so much as pattern imitation. The system "knows" what a citation is supposed to look like but does not understand the obligation behind it.

The article is careful not to present these signs as rules. Many of the characteristics it lists can also appear in human writing, particularly from inexperienced authors, non-native speakers, or people drafting quickly under pressure. Likewise, some AI generated text will avoid most of these pitfalls, especially when heavily guided or edited by a person. This is one of the page’s most valuable points in my view.

That caveat matters well beyond Wikipedia. In marketing, journalism, education, and knowledge management, people are trying to decide how much trust to place in text they did not see written. Tools that promise to detect AI writing based on surface features often rely on the same assumptions described in the article.

If you are responsible for published content, the practical advice is simple. Treat the signs as prompts for closer reading, not as proof. Ask whether claims can be checked. Look for original insight or direct engagement with sources and pay attention to whether the text feels like it was written for a reason, not just assembled to fit a shape.

I would encourage you to read the Wikipedia article itself. It is relatively long but grounded in real editorial experience, and refreshingly cautious given how heated this topic can become. It does not promise certainty, and that restraint is probably its main lesson.

One final note, in the spirit of transparency (and actually the underlying point of this post): This blog was written by an AI. Matt Smith, the human author, instructed the system to summarise the Wikipedia article while avoiding the usual stylistic fingerprints associated with AI writing. Although (and somewhat refreshingly) Matt had to make many manual edits to the AI text to make it sound less "AI" - and many of the "tells" which Matt told it to explicitly avoid, where not actually avoided!

However, If you found this piece readable or convincing, that is the point. Even when you know the signs to look for, awareness alone does not guarantee that you will not be fooled.

Written by Matt Smith (and an AI which doesn't know how to follow simple instructions!)