When Ten Leaders Start Writing Like the Same Person

I am not sure when we became so willing to give up the value of our own ideas, experience and individuality, while almost automatically accepting AI-generated wording as the gold standard!

Sometimes I run a small professional experiment. I hide the author’s name, read a post or comment, and try to guess who wrote it. More and more often, I cannot. People have different experience and ways of thinking, yet in public they are starting to sound as if the same person wrote everything. The text is correct and polished, the ending usually contains a grand conclusion, and the only thing left of the author is the name next to the post.

In my opinion, this is currently one of the biggest risks that artificial intelligence creates for the communication of leaders and experts. AI takes a living idea, polishes the language and turns it into a standard format. The text is produced faster and may appear more professional. But the smoother it becomes, the harder it is to see the author behind it. This time, I want to talk about the price we pay when we hand over our writing to AI without thinking critically.

A text always says something about the person who publishes it. From the language, readers judge how that person thinks, what they consider important and whether they can be trusted. When individual language is polished into one common standard, it becomes harder to see the person behind the words.

The audience is already noticing this. In an Olsen+Partners survey, four out of five people in Latvia said that during the past year they had often or sometimes felt that AI had been used in communication materials published by organisations or their representatives. Only 21% viewed the use of AI in such communication positively.

Journalists and editors from Latvia’s largest media outlets told us something similar in interviews conducted by Olsen+Partners. They are receiving more and more materials that are correct, but also repetitive and impersonal. Some reject these texts, while others rewrite them. Several journalists admitted that after receiving such a text, they become more sceptical about the organisation’s future communication.

The use of AI also changes how much effort we believe the author has put into the message. In one study by researchers in Ohio, participants were asked to evaluate a message from a friend that had been prepared with the help of AI. Once they learned that AI had been involved, they felt that the friend had made less effort, which created negative feelings in the recipient.

That is why I often say that it is sometimes better to write a little awkwardly, but in your own style. If you would never say that something “marks a significant turning point” in real life, do not put the phrase into your text just because AI suggested it. When an idea can be expressed simply, say it simply. The grand language often produced by AI does not prove competence, but it can easily create distance between you and your audience.

This issue has concerned me so much that at Olsen+Partners we created a free tool called Olsen+TextAudit. It evaluates how a text may sound to the reader and highlights specific places where the language begins to feel synthetic or too similar to other AI-generated texts.

I would like Olsen+TextAudit to become an everyday tool for communication professionals, leaders and experts. Before publishing your next text in your own name or on behalf of your organisation, check it with Olsen+TextAudit, read the suggestions and rewrite the parts where your own voice begins to disappear behind the AI style. In the end, responsibility for the text always remains with us.

A good text is like a well-tailored suit: no matter what tools were used to create it, it should fit the author, not make the author fit a standard template. Let AI help you and save you time. Just do not give it your uniqueness.