What happened
Tom Tunguz, a venture capital investor and writer, observes that readers increasingly question whether his blog posts are AI-written, despite his deliberate stylistic choices—ampersands, neologisms like "mid-model-market," sentence fragments, and mimicry of authors like Cormac McCarthy—designed to signal authenticity. He now uses AI as an editor rather than a ghostwriter, drawing on its ability to critique writing rigorously and recall statistical analyses.
Why it matters
The distinction matters because AI ghostwriting produces homogenized output—everyone using the same tool ends up with similar voice and tone—whereas human editors suppress their own voices to preserve the author's unique style. Readers, saturated with AI-generated content ("slop"), are testing posts for authenticity; heavy AI involvement erodes the musicality and distinctiveness that good writing requires, even when the author is deliberately trying to signal human authorship through punctuation and grammar choices.
What to watch
The tension between using AI as a tool (editor/critic) versus letting it reshape the final voice. Tunguz's framework—that AI excels at structural feedback and factual rigor but fails as a ghostwriter—suggests writers may need to be more explicit about where and how they deploy AI in the creative process to maintain reader trust.
Summaries like this, in your inbox every morning.
Tunguz's observation reflects a broader credibility crisis in the age of synthetic content. Readers, now accustomed to seeing low-effort AI-generated text (colloquially called "slop"), have begun to interrogate authenticity actively—checking for stylistic consistency, tonal quirks, and the kind of idiosyncratic choices that signal deliberate human authorship. The author's response is instructive: he has doubled down on visible distinctiveness (ampersands, neologisms, syntactic playfulness) precisely to signal that a human sensibility shaped the work, even while AI assists in the editing phase.
The distinction Tunguz draws between editors and ghostwriters is conceptually important. A traditional editor's role is to improve clarity, rigor, and structure while remaining invisible—subordinating their own voice to the author's. A ghostwriter, by contrast, must inhabit the author's voice so completely that readers cannot distinguish the two. AI fails at the latter task because its training data and optimization process produce convergent outputs across users; there is no individual variation, no quirk that belongs to one AI instance rather than another. By contrast, AI as an editor—providing feedback on argument structure, factual accuracy, and pacing—can enhance the author's voice without erasing it, much like a human editor would.
Pick your industry and the AI tools you use, and get news related to your work every day.
Free · 30 seconds with Google · unsubscribe anytimeWhat is AIToday? →
Ask AI anything about this article. The AI reads this article, earlier AIToday articles, and Wikipedia, and cites its sources. Q&As are published on this page for other readers too.
