Humankit

humankit

Rewrite text so it stops sounding like a language model produced it. The job is not to delete flagged words but to rewrite the prose into something a specific human would actually write: concrete, uneven in rhythm, plain in construction, and true to the author's register. Cover everything the original covers — a five-paragraph source becomes a five-paragraph rewrite, not a summary.

The aim is ordinary readability: the prose a careful human editor would produce. This is copy-editing to make writing read well, not a way to disguise machine-written work as human where honesty is required — academic submissions, disclosure-bound, or attributed writing. Edit for the reader, not to game any automated check.

When this fires

The user hands you text and asks to "humanize" it, "remove the AI tells," "make it sound human," "de-slop this," or "edit out the ChatGPT voice" — or asks you to review a draft for those tells without rewriting. If they only want a diagnosis, do the detection pass and report the tells; skip the rewrite.

If the user supplies a sample of their own writing, read it first and match its sentence length, vocabulary level, punctuation habits, and transitions. Replace AI patterns with their patterns, not with a generic "good writing" default. With no sample, aim for natural, varied, lightly opinionated prose — except in encyclopedic, technical, legal, or reference text, where plain and neutral is the correct human voice.

The tells

Scan for these. They matter in clusters, not in isolation — one em dash or one "however" proves nothing; em dashes plus rule-of-three plus "vibrant tapestry" plus a "Conclusion" section is a confession.

Inflated significance. Puffing arbitrary facts into history: stands as a testament to, marks a pivotal moment, reflects a broader, plays a crucial role, setting the stage for, evolving landscape, leaves an indelible mark. Cut the editorializing; state the fact.

Promotional tone. Travel-brochure adjectives: nestled, in the heart of, vibrant, rich cultural heritage, breathtaking, boasts a, must-visit, renowned, stunning. Replace with what the thing concretely is or does.

Superficial -ing tails. Present-participle clauses bolted on for fake depth: …, highlighting its importance, …, reflecting the community's connection, …, ensuring seamless integration. Delete or fold the real content into a plain clause.

AI vocabulary. Words that spiked after 2023 and tend to co-occur: delve, crucial, pivotal, underscore, showcase, tapestry, testament, intricate, enduring, foster, garner, interplay, landscape (abstract), leverage, seamless, robust, realm. Swap for ordinary words.

Copula avoidance. Dodging is/are: serves as, functions as, represents, boasts, features. Prefer "X is Y."

Rule of three. Forcing ideas into triads to sound complete: innovation, inspiration, and industry insights. Break the rhythm; keep only the items that carry weight.

Negative parallelism. Not only… but also…, It's not just X, it's Y, and clipped tailing negations tacked on as fragments: …, no guessing, …, no wasted motion. Write the real clause instead.

Filler and hedging. In order to → to; due to the fact that → because; at this point in time → now; has the ability to → can; it is important to note that. Strip the padding. Cut stacked qualifiers: could potentially possibly → may.

Signposting and chatbot residue. Let's dive in, here's what you need to know, without further ado, and pasted correspondence: I hope this helps, Certainly!, You're absolutely right!, Would you like me to…, let me know. Do the thing instead of announcing it; delete the chat framing.

Persuasive-authority and aphorism formulas. The real question is, at its core, what really matters, fundamentally; and X is the language of Y, X becomes a trap. These dress an ordinary claim in ceremony. Replace with the concrete claim underneath.

Vague attribution. Experts argue, observers have noted, industry reports suggest with no source named. Name the source or cut the claim. Watch too for knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (as of my last update, while specific details are limited) and speculative gap-fill (likely grew up, it is believed that, maintains a low profile) — say what isn't known, don't invent plausible filler.

Formatting tells. Mechanical boldface on key phrases; inline-header bullet lists (- **Performance:** …); Title Case In Every Heading; decorative emojis; curly quotes where straight ones belong; generic upbeat conclusions (the future looks bright, exciting times lie ahead).

The em-dash rule

The finished rewrite contains no em dashes (—) and uses no en dashes (–) as sentence punctuation. Replace those marks, in rough order of preference, with a period, comma, colon, parentheses, or a restructured sentence. Preserve legitimate numeric/date/page ranges by using a hyphen or writing "to" (1914-1918, pp. 10 to 12). Catch spaced em dashes (—) and double hyphens (--) used the same way. Before delivering, search the draft for — and –; any remaining en dash must be a legitimate range, and any em dash means the rewrite is not done.

What not to flag

Clean human writing trips several of these on its own. Do not gut legitimate prose:

• Polish, formal vocabulary, or consistent style — professionals and edited writers exist.
• A single em dash, one however, one clipped emphatic sentence, curly quotes alone — editors and word processors produce all of these.
• Bland or dry prose without the specific tells above — dry is not the same as AI.
• Quoted text, titles, proper names, or a phrase being discussed rather than used — never rewrite inside those.

Lean toward leaving prose alone when you see hard-to-fake specifics (a real address, an odd quote), mixed or unresolved feelings, era-bound slang, genuine asides or self-corrections, and real variety in sentence length. Those are the fingerprints of a person.

Process

1. Read the input and mark every instance of the tells above.
2. Write a draft rewrite: read it aloud in your head, vary sentence length, prefer concrete detail and plain constructions (is/are/has), hold the original's register and coverage.
3. Ask yourself: what still makes this read as AI-generated? Answer in a few blunt bullets.
4. Revise into a final rewrite that fixes those, carrying no em or en dashes.

Output

Deliver, in order: the final rewrite (the main artifact), a short "what still read as AI" note listing the tells you caught when you asked what still reads as AI-generated, and a one-line summary of changes. When a writable filesystem is available and the source came from a file, write the rewrite back (or beside it) and report the path; otherwise print the rewrite in a fenced code block so it copies cleanly. If the user asked only for a review, skip the rewrite and report the located tells with line references instead.

Reference

The pattern catalog derives from Wikipedia: Signs of AI writing, maintained by WikiProject AI Cleanup.