How to remove AI-writing patterns from content

A signal that content is AI-written can be any recurring language, structure, or tone pattern that makes readers perceive the content as generic, automated, or low-confidence.

AI writing tools produce identifiable patterns. Readers notice these patterns even if they can't name them, and the result can be content that feels generic or untrustworthy. This page catalogs the most common signals of AI-written language and explains how to fix them.

The goal isn't to hide the fact that AI assistance was used; it's to produce content that earns a reader's attention because it's specific, direct, and written with a clear voice.

Structural patterns

Em-dashes and parenthetical asides

AI tools frequently insert em-dashes to wrap qualifications, parentheticals, or asides that don't need to be included in the first place. Before retaining such a sentence fragment, ask whether the aside adds meaning or just words.

Sounds like AI: "The new dashboard — which was introduced in version 1.34 — gives teams visibility into deployment health."

Better: "The latest dashboard shows deployment health at a glance."

Filler openers

Some words signal that a sentence might waste the reader's time. Delete these on sight:

• Certainly,
• Absolutely,
• Of course,
• Great question.

These are common chatbot greetings. They appear most often in AI-generated emails and support responses. They have no place in documentation or editorial content.

Three-part, padded lists

AI gravitates toward rhythmic triplets: "It's fast, reliable, and scalable." Unless all three items are genuinely distinct and worth saying, the pattern dilutes the point. State the one item that matters most.

Sounds like AI: "The integration is fast, flexible, and easy to use."

Better: "Setup takes under five minutes."

Hedging phrases

These phrases soften claims to the point where they can't be argued, which means nothing useful is said. Cut these on sight:

• "It's worth noting that..."
• "It's important to remember that..."
• "One might consider..."
• "In many cases..."

If information deserves inclusion, state it directly. If you can't state it directly, consider leaving it out entirely.

Hollow section openers

These introductory phrases delay the point and are interchangeable with any other article on any topic:

• "In today's fast-paced world..."
• "In the current landscape of..."
• "As technology continues to evolve..."

Cut straight to the claim.

Words that flag AI authorship

These terms appear in AI-generated content far more often than in genuine technical or editorial writing. Flag them during review and replace them with something specific.

Avoid	Why
leverage	Use "use" unless you mean mechanical advantage
utilize	Almost always replaceable with "use"
robust	Means nothing without specifics
seamless	Every integration claims to be seamless
holistic	Vague; name the actual approach
cutting-edge	The reader can't verify this claim
transformative	An extraordinary claim, never substantiated
elevate / empower	Promotional language that carries no information
delve	Stilted; use "look at" or "explore" instead
crucial / pivotal	Reserve for things that are actually decisive
comprehensive	Usually just means "long," not thorough
streamline	Use "simplify" or describe what specifically changed

Replace vague intensifiers with specifics. "A significant improvement" tells the reader nothing. "40% faster query execution" does.

Voice and substance

Make a claim you would defend

AI-generated content avoids taking a position. As a test, if a paragraph could be used unchanged on a competitor's webpage, then it's too neutral and says nothing distinctive.

Sounds like AI: "Organizations can benefit from monitoring their infrastructure in real time."

Better: "Without real-time monitoring, teams hear about outages from users, not alerts."

Back every claim with evidence

Assertions without data, examples, or citations are a reliable AI signal. For each substantive claim, add at least one of:

• A specific number or percentage
• A named example or use case
• A link to the source

Cut navigational transitions

"Now that we've covered X, let's turn to Y..." and "To summarize what we've learned..." are filler. Good structure makes these transitions unnecessary. If you find yourself writing them, reorganize the content instead.

Take a side

AI defaults to false balance: "On one hand... on the other hand..." If you have a recommendation, make it. Readers come to Dynatrace for guidance, not for diplomatic summaries of all possible views.