On the Usefulness of AI in Writing
September 11, 2026
I realise it may be letting the side down to acknowledge that AI actually has valid uses for the work of a writer. It seems to me that, to be a writer at the moment, there's an unstated code in the profession that you have to hate AI, if not actively campaign against AI.
I am against using AI generated text as much as the next writer, but I do see its usefulness to me in my work.
AI as we call it today is actually a set of Large Language Models (LLMs). As the description implies, it is the latest evolution in computer parsing, understanding and generating of language text. So surely it could analyse the style of my writing. I unleashed it on an essay I'm working on.
On the following piece of writing, analyse my writing style and tell me how you would define and describe it
The response?:
Your style is conversational essayistic with a polemical streak.
Was that a compliment or an insult?
To elaborate, apparently my distinctive traits as explicated by the AI were:
Conversational authority. You write in first person with a confident, occasionally wry voice. You reason on the page rather than presenting finished conclusions.
Rhetorical patterning through repetition and antithesis. You lean on parallel structures and contrasts. There's an aphoristic instinct at work — sentences are crafted for quotability, not just information.
Argument by juxtaposition rather than strict argument. You move between registers and trust the reader to assemble the throughline. This gives the writing energy and a personal, blog-like voice, but it also means transitions sometimes carry more weight than the connective tissue can bear.
Concrete detail anchored in lived experience. That specificity is a real strength; it keeps abstract arguments grounded.
Epigrammatic closers and callbacks. You like ending sections on a pivot. There's a consistent wit here.
I don't disagree with that. It's particularly good to know my connective tissue isn't strong enough for some of my transitions! It certainly gave me a unique perspective on my style and much to think about. While it is valuable to know the positive characteristics of your writing, it's even more valuable to know its weaknesses. The AI even offered some unsolicited advice on that:
Abstraction creep. You sometimes coin terms faster than you cash them out.
Density over rhythm. Some paragraphs carry three ideas at once; a reader can lose the thread even when each sentence is individually clear.
Unresolved tension. You introduce a counter-position, but the essay doesn't fully dramatize that tension — it stays asserted rather than dramatized.
It should be noted this was a first draft text, and I have different styles for essays and fiction. Some of the aspects raised are ones I usually address in subsequent drafts. For example, I particularly agree with the second point, in that my first drafts always cram too many ideas in too little a space. I end up breaking a lot of them up and adding more expository sentences.
Of course, an AI judgement will never have the quality of assessment of a human editor, or a human reader. It can never tell me how my writing made it feel.
So my conclusion as a style guide (as I so often conclude on all topics AI lately) is that it has some interesting things to say, but will never replace the truly human.
So ... how does that make you feel? :)