"People might think I'm dumb for correcting typos too late or not at all, especially in the days of auto-correct. But I have embraced the typo. It'll be there, maybe next to a comma that's in the wrong place, but instead of thinking I'm no skilled writer, I hope you appreciate that I actually did write that. I didn't tell a machine to. It came out as intended. It lived a little."
"A lot of our linguistic developments originate from typos and that laziness that makes you not want to write certain words: definitly (how do you spell that?) becomes def, to be honest, becomes tbh, going to gonna, because to cuz. Other changes stem from a word not fully saying what it has to say: girl becomes gurl or giiiirl. Meaning on a "if you know you know basis". That if is what makes us human. That nuance is realness."
"For me, the worst thing about AI writing isn't the takeover of the em dash, or that everything sounds the same, it's that so much is written that really shouldn't be. Why write about your rebrand when you can show me? Why tell me about your course when you could just give me a snippet of your teaching? With AI, it's easier to create content that passes most people's bar for what's good enough."
Typos and informal spellings signal human authenticity, spontaneity, and nuance that machines cannot reproduce. Common linguistic shifts arise from typing shortcuts, laziness, or expressive elongation: definitly→def, to be honest→tbh, going to→gonna, because→cuz, girl→gurl or giiiirl. Those variations convey meaning on an 'if you know you know' basis and preserve human specificity. Applying fewer filters to original composition and more scrutiny to consumed content preserves realness. Format and demonstration often communicate better than commentary. AI lowers the bar for publishable content, increasing volume and diluting attention. Effortful, deliberate writing and asking whether content needs to exist improves quality.
Read at Medium
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]