A logbook for curious waters
← Back

The Antidote to LLM-isms: 240 Bad Habits and What to Do Instead

#artificial-intelligence#writing#language#llms#style#editing
A human writer turns repetitive machine-made pages into colorful ink, branches, and birds.

The Antidote to LLM-isms: 240 Bad Habits and What to Do Instead

There is a problem with a dictionary of LLM-isms.

Once you have named delve, landscape, not X but Y, the rule of three, the rhetorical question answered by its author, the over-neat paragraph, the reassuring conclusion, the consultant framework, and two hundred other habits, the dictionary begins to look like a blacklist.

That is useful for diagnosis. It is a poor theory of writing.

Telling a writer, human or artificial, what not to do creates a vacuum. The easiest response is substitution: replace delve with explore, replace an em dash with a colon, replace “not X but Y” with “rather than X, Y.” The surface changes. The habit survives.

A better question is:

What communicative job was the writer trying to accomplish, and what should the writer do instead?

That question turns a blacklist into a positive grammar.

Negative parallelism can be trying to correct a misconception, establish priority, intensify a claim, or connect two ideas. There is no single replacement phrase. The antidote is to identify the operation and perform it directly. If X is wrong, explain why. If Y matters more, say why. If both matter, describe the relationship. If the contrast adds nothing, delete it.

The same logic scales surprisingly far.

“Importantly” is often trying to create emphasis. The antidote is not another adverb; it is a consequence, a number, a comparison, or a fact that earns emphasis. “Research suggests” is trying to borrow authority. The antidote is to name the research. “The implications are profound” is trying to establish significance. The antidote is to identify the implication. A three-part framework is trying to create order. The antidote is to use exactly as many categories as the subject requires.

This article takes the 240 entries in The LLM-ism Dictionary and inverts each one.

The aim is not to make AI writing “sound human” by sprinkling in typos, fragments, slang, or arbitrary eccentricity. Nor is it to prohibit devices that good writers have used for centuries. Parallelism is useful. Headings are useful. Lists are useful. Caveats are essential when the evidence is uncertain. The problem is automaticity: reaching for a device because it is a statistically comfortable continuation rather than because the sentence needs it.

The positive alternative is writing governed by communicative intent.

What the citations mean

Every antidote below has at least one source.

That does not mean there are 240 controlled experiments comparing each named LLM-ism with its replacement. The citations support the underlying positive writing principle: familiar words, active voice where agency matters, concrete detail, reader-centered organization, calibrated uncertainty, accurate citation, useful headings, purposeful lists, or preservation of authorial voice.

The source base deliberately mixes government and institutional plain-language standards, major technical-writing style guides, writing-center guidance, peer-reviewed research on readability and uncertainty, and recent research on LLM-assisted writing.

Some sources recur because one durable principle cures many surface symptoms. That is the point. If thirty LLM-isms collapse into “use concrete language,” then the blacklist was hiding a simpler rule.

The positive grammar underneath the 240 rules

  1. Prefer information over rhetoric. Do not announce importance, complexity, surprise, depth, or interest when facts can demonstrate them. D1
  2. Name actors and actions. Concrete subjects and active verbs make responsibility and causality easier to see. A2
  3. Use the most specific familiar word that fits. Prestige vocabulary is not precision. M3
  4. Put the main message where readers can find it. Background should serve the answer, not delay it. C1
  5. State relationships instead of announcing them. If two ideas contrast, explain the contrast; if one causes another, name the mechanism or evidence. R5
  6. Let form follow thought. Use two items when there are two, eleven when there are eleven, and no list when prose is clearer. M5
  7. Use structure for navigation, not ceremony. Headings, tables, bullets, and summaries should solve a reader problem. M6
  8. Match certainty to evidence. Say what is known, estimated, inferred, disputed, or unknown. R3
  9. Keep source boundaries visible. Name evidence, distinguish examples from evidence, and separate fact from inference. R6
  10. Let asymmetry remain asymmetric. Unequal evidence, importance, and uncertainty do not need balanced prose. D4
  11. Preserve real disagreement. Do not automatically convert conflicts into trade-offs or syntheses. R2
  12. Prefer concrete examples with relevant detail. Concreteness aids comprehension and memory; invented examples should be labeled. N1
  13. Preserve the writer. Editing should improve comprehension without replacing idiosyncratic judgment with a generic prestige register. R11
  14. Do not confuse polish with truth. Fluency, specificity, academic tone, and symmetrical argument are not evidence. R8
  15. Stop when the work is done. A conclusion, recap, moral, or option menu needs a reader-facing purpose. D3

The remainder is the long version.

I. Words with an AI accent: replace prestige vocabulary with information

1. Delve

Antidote: Name the actual intellectual operation: examine, compare, trace, test, or simply begin the analysis. D3R9

2. Intricate

Antidote: Describe the specific complexity instead of labeling it intricate. D1R14

3. Nuanced

Antidote: State the competing considerations, boundary conditions, or exceptions that create the nuance. D4

4. Multifaceted

Antidote: Name the relevant causes or dimensions, and include only the ones that matter to the argument. D4

5. Landscape

Antidote: Name the domain, market, field, rules, firms, or institutions you actually mean. D1

6. Realm

Antidote: Use the ordinary domain noun: field, area, discipline, market, jurisdiction, or topic. M3

7. Tapestry

Antidote: Replace the metaphor with the actual relationships among the elements—or keep it only when the textile metaphor is doing real work. R14

8. Ecosystem

Antidote: Use ecosystem only for a genuinely interdependent system; otherwise name the participants and dependencies. A2

9. Pivotal

Antidote: Say what changed before and after the event. C1

10. Crucial / vital / essential

Antidote: Specify the consequence of omitting or mishandling the thing. C1

11. Underscore

Antidote: State the inference directly, or report the result and let the reader draw it. M4R10

12. Highlight

Antidote: Use show, find, reveal, or a concrete result when that is what you mean. M3

13. Showcase

Antidote: Describe what the example demonstrates; avoid marketing verbs unless the text is actually marketing. D1

14. Leverage

Antidote: Usually use use; when leverage genuinely means exploiting an advantage, name the advantage. M3

15. Harness

Antidote: Say use, capture, channel, or convert, whichever describes the mechanism. M3

16. Foster

Antidote: Name the action that is supposed to produce the outcome: hire, fund, invite, reward, train, connect, protect. A2

17. Robust

Antidote: Define the failure modes, stresses, datasets, or conditions the thing withstands. C1

18. Seamless

Antidote: Describe the handoff, latency, number of steps, or failure rate that makes the experience smooth. D4

19. Streamline

Antidote: Say which steps were removed, combined, automated, or shortened. C1

20. Optimize

Antidote: Name the objective function or desired trade-off: reduce cost, cut latency, improve recall, save time. D4

21. Dynamic

Antidote: Describe what changes, how quickly, and in response to what. D1

22. Evolving

Antidote: State the specific trend, revision, or change over time. C2

23. Transformative

Antidote: Describe the before-and-after difference and its magnitude. C1

24. Testament

Antidote: State the evidence or achievement directly. D3

25. Journey

Antidote: Use the concrete process, sequence, or experience unless the travel metaphor adds insight. D1

26. Navigate

Antidote: Name the actual tasks: comply with rules, choose among vendors, resolve conflicts, compare options. D4

27. Resonate

Antidote: Describe the observed response—sales, survey results, quotations, attendance, imitation—or label it as your interpretation. R6

28. Meaningful

Antidote: Say meaningful to whom, by what criterion, and with what effect. D4

29. Compelling

Antidote: Give the evidence or reasoning that should compel the reader. R7

30. Thoughtful / thoughtfully

Antidote: Describe the consideration, trade-off, or design choice rather than praising the thoughtfulness. D3

31. Notably

Antidote: Delete it unless you need to contrast this fact with less important facts; otherwise put the notable fact where prominence itself shows importance. M2

32. Importantly

Antidote: State the consequence or move the sentence earlier. C1

33. Interestingly

Antidote: Give the violated expectation or surprising comparison. D3

34. Significantly

Antidote: Use a number, effect size, statistical meaning, or a plainer degree word; never leave the sense ambiguous. R3

35. Key

Antidote: Name the role: largest cause, necessary condition, first step, main constraint, strongest predictor. C1

36. Core

Antidote: State the central claim directly, especially if it can lead the paragraph. C1

37. Fundamental / fundamentally

Antidote: Say what depends on the claim or what assumption it rests on. R7

38. Underpin

Antidote: Name the dependency: X requires Y, rests on Y, or is caused by Y. A2

39. Align

Antidote: Specify what becomes consistent: incentives, schedules, definitions, targets, or decisions. D4

40. Facilitate

Antidote: Prefer help, enable, allow, or the exact action. M3

41. Elevate

Antidote: Say improve—and identify the metric—or describe the actual change. M2

42. Empower

Antidote: Name the new capability, authority, resource, or decision right the person receives. A2

43. Unlock

Antidote: State the new option, capacity, data, market, or behavior that becomes available. D3

44. Unpack

Antidote: Begin the explanation, or say analyze if a verb is needed. A1

45. Lens

Antidote: State the theory, criterion, or perspective directly. D1

46. Interplay

Antidote: Describe the direction of influence between the variables or actors. R5

47. Intersection

Antidote: Name the shared problem, overlapping population, combined method, or institutional boundary. D1

48. Paradigm

Antidote: Use model, practice, assumption, or framework when one of those is what you actually mean; reserve paradigm for genuine field-level shifts. M3

49. Framework

Antidote: Use the word only when there really is a reusable structure with defined parts and relations; otherwise call it a list, method, or set of questions. D1

50. Holistic

Antidote: Enumerate the dimensions that must be considered together. D4

II. Sentence templates: perform the communicative job directly

51. Negative parallelism: “It’s not X; it’s Y”

Antidote: Identify the intended operation—correction, prioritization, expansion, or contrast—and perform that operation directly. If X is simply wrong, explain why; if Y matters more, state why. D6

52. “Not merely X, but Y”

Antidote: If both X and Y are true, state their relationship without downgrading X for drama: ‘X also causes Y,’ ‘X has a social consequence,’ or two ordinary sentences. G2

53. “Not just X — Y”

Antidote: Replace the drumroll with the actual addition or consequence. D3

54. “Less about X, more about Y”

Antidote: State the comparison criterion and, when possible, quantify or explain why Y deserves more weight. R7

55. “X is not the point. Y is.”

Antidote: Lead with Y, then mention X only if the reader needs the correction. C1

56. “The real question is…”

Antidote: Answer the user’s stated question first. Reframe only when the original question contains a false premise or misses a decision-critical variable, and explain the reason for the reframe. D4

57. Rhetorical question followed immediately by the answer

Antidote: Use a declarative sentence unless the question creates genuine suspense, invites reflection, or mirrors a question the reader is actually asking. M2

58. The dramatic fragment

Antidote: Use a fragment only when rhythm or emphasis genuinely benefits. Otherwise make the relation explicit in a complete sentence. P2

59. “Here’s where it gets interesting”

Antidote: Delete the line and present the surprising fact, contradiction, or result. A1

60. “Here’s the thing”

Antidote: State the thing. M2

61. “And that matters”

Antidote: State the consequence—who changes a decision, what risk rises, what cost falls—or stop the paragraph. C1

62. “Why does this matter?”

Antidote: Answer the practical consequence directly, or use the question only when it matches the reader’s likely next question. D4

63. “What makes X interesting is…”

Antidote: Write the observation that makes X interesting, including the comparison or anomaly. D3

64. “A useful way to think about this is…”

Antidote: Present the model, analogy, or decomposition immediately and identify its limits if they matter. M2

65. “The key distinction is…”

Antidote: State the distinction in concrete terms, preferably with the criterion that separates the categories. P3

66. “At a high level…”

Antidote: Give the concise summary. Add detail only when the reader needs it. M2

67. “In practice…”

Antidote: Move directly from claim to a real procedure, example, observed behavior, or decision. D4

68. “In other words…”

Antidote: Rewrite the first sentence until it is clear enough that a translation is unnecessary; keep the restatement only when a second representation genuinely aids understanding. M3

69. “Put differently…”

Antidote: Use a second formulation only if it changes the level of abstraction, supplies an example, or resolves likely ambiguity. D3

70. “That said…”

Antidote: State the relationship explicitly: however for contradiction, separately for a new issue, despite this for concession—or simply start a new sentence. P1

71. “To be clear…”

Antidote: Clarify the sentence itself. Keep the phrase only when distinguishing your claim from a specific plausible misreading. M3

72. “To put it simply…”

Antidote: Use the simple version first. D1

73. “While X, Y” concessive balance

Antidote: Use concession only when X materially limits or conditions Y. If the evidence is asymmetric, let the sentence be asymmetric. R7

74. “Although X, it is important to remember Y”

Antidote: State the limitation and its consequence without the ‘important to remember’ wrapper. R3

75. “Where X does A, Y does B”

Antidote: Keep parallel comparison when it exposes a real shared dimension; otherwise describe each object in the structure best suited to it. P3

76. “Both things can be true”

Antidote: Specify how: different populations, timescales, causal levels, definitions, or conditions. If they actually conflict, say so. R3

77. “These are not mutually exclusive”

Antidote: Name the overlap or interaction instead of merely denying exclusivity. D6

78. “Rather than X, think of it as Y”

Antidote: Explain what X gets wrong and what predictive or explanatory advantage Y provides. D4

79. “From X to Y”

Antidote: Use the construction when there is a genuine sequence or transformation; otherwise title the section with the actual topic. M6

80. “Whether X or Y…”

Antidote: Name the actual audience or cases covered. Do not imply universality with a decorative range of reader types. D4

81. The rule of three

Antidote: Use exactly as many items as reality requires. Keep three when there truly are three, not because three sounds complete. A3

82. The ascending triad

Antidote: Reserve escalation for evidence that genuinely increases in scope or consequence. P2

83. Parallelism overkill

Antidote: Keep parallelism where it clarifies a true series; vary syntax elsewhere so repeated form does not become the argument. A3

84. Paired antonyms

Antidote: Name the actual trade-off, constraint, or coexistence instead of pairing adjectives for polish. D3

85. The colon epiphany

Antidote: Use a colon when the second clause genuinely explains or enumerates the first; otherwise write the claim directly. G2

86. The em-dash hinge

Antidote: Keep the dash when it creates useful interruption or emphasis, but do not make it the default machine for turning every sentence into a contrast. P2

87. The parenthetical mini-lecture

Antidote: Define only what the target reader may not know, preferably at first use and in the least disruptive form. D4

88. The definition sandwich

Antidote: Define terms when the definition is necessary, then move to the task or argument; do not force every concept through term → definition → consequence. D4

III. Paragraph structure: let the thought determine the shape

89. One idea, one paragraph, one landing

Antidote: Keep paragraph unity, but let paragraph length and ending follow the content. A paragraph does not need a miniature moral after every example. P1

90. The paragraph that resolves too cleanly

Antidote: End when the thought is complete. Leave a question, tension, or fact unresolved when the subject itself is unresolved. R3

91. Thesis echo

Antidote: Repeat the thesis only when a new section changes its meaning, scope, or evidence. Otherwise advance the argument. P1

92. Conclusion echo

Antidote: Use the conclusion for consequences, synthesis, limits, or the next decision; omit it when there is nothing new to add. D3

93. The mandatory transition sentence

Antidote: Use a transition only where the logical connection is not already obvious; sometimes a new paragraph or heading is enough. P2

94. The context → explanation → implication loop

Antidote: Vary section architecture according to the question: chronology, comparison, mechanism, example, problem/solution, or direct recommendation. P3

95. The miniature executive summary

Antidote: Summarize up front when readers need scanning or the material is long. For short sections, begin with the substance. C2

96. The recap after the recap

Antidote: After a list, add synthesis only if the relationship among items is not obvious or if the synthesis changes the decision. D3

97. The nested taxonomy

Antidote: Classify only when categories help prediction, navigation, diagnosis, or action. Stop subdividing when the categories no longer change what the reader does. D4

98. The false crescendo

Antidote: Increase rhetorical intensity only when evidence, stakes, or scope actually increase. C1

99. The zoom-out ending

Antidote: End at the scale the evidence supports. Do not convert a local observation into a claim about society or humanity without an argument bridging the levels. R3

100. The accordion

Antidote: Change scale only when the movement adds explanatory value; otherwise stay with the level of analysis that answers the question. D4

101. Suspiciously even paragraph lengths

Antidote: Let paragraph breaks follow changes in idea, emphasis, speaker, or cognitive load rather than a target visual size. P1

102. The five-paragraph-essay magnet

Antidote: Choose the number and order of sections after identifying the actual claims and evidence. A topic with two major parts should have two; one with seven may need seven. P3

103. False completeness

Antidote: Mark scope explicitly: ‘This covers the three factors relevant to X,’ not ‘There are three factors’ unless you can defend exhaustiveness. R3

104. No weird detours

Antidote: Permit a detour when it reveals mechanism, history, texture, or a genuinely interesting anomaly—but make sure the reader can see why you took it. P2

105. Symmetry bias

Antidote: Allocate space according to evidence and importance, not according to a desire for balanced shapes. D4

106. Conflict smoothing

Antidote: Name substantive disagreement, incompatible predictions, or value conflict when it exists. Do not translate every dispute into a neutral trade-off. R7

107. Rhetorical tidiness

Antidote: Prefer coherence without artificial closure: connect ideas clearly, but allow ambiguity, unresolved evidence, disproportionate emphasis, and genuine conflict to remain visible. R8

IV. Lists and frameworks: organize only when organization helps

108. Bullets for everything

Antidote: Use bullets for a true set of parallel items; use prose for an argument, narrative, causal chain, or idea that depends on sentence-to-sentence development. A3

109. The three-to-seven-item sweet spot

Antidote: Let item count be determined by the set. If the list is long, group only when meaningful; if it has one item, it is not a list. A3

110. Every bullet begins grammatically alike

Antidote: Keep parallel syntax when the items truly belong to one set. Break the parallelism if the items perform different functions—perhaps they should not be one list. A3

111. Bold-label bullets

Antidote: Use run-in labels when readers need to scan term/definition pairs; otherwise ordinary bullets or prose may be cleaner. A3

112. The list preamble

Antidote: Introduce a list only with the context the reader needs. If a heading already supplies that context, skip the filler sentence. A3

113. The list postamble

Antidote: Add a post-list sentence only when it synthesizes, prioritizes, or draws an inference not already visible in the items. D3

114. The hidden consulting deck

Antidote: Use slides-like chunks only when scanability is the goal. For reasoning that depends on continuity, write connected prose. M6

115. The matrix reflex

Antidote: Use a table when items have several comparable attributes; use prose or a list when the comparison is sparse or qualitative. A4

116. The pros-and-cons reflex

Antidote: Organize around decision criteria, evidence strength, and constraints rather than forcing every question into two columns. D4

117. The checklist reflex

Antidote: Use a numbered checklist for actions that are sequential or independently verifiable; use principles, examples, or prose when the problem is not procedural. A3

118. The “quick version / deeper version” split

Antidote: Layer information only when the audience truly contains skimmers and deep readers or the document is long enough to justify progressive disclosure. M2

119. The numbered framework

Antidote: Number parts only when order, priority, cross-reference, or memorability matters. Do not promote ordinary observations into pillars merely to make them look systematized. A3

120. Acronym manufacture

Antidote: Create an acronym only when readers will encounter the term repeatedly and the abbreviation saves real cognitive or physical space. C2

V. Formatting: use visual structure as navigation, not decoration

121. Heading cascade

Antidote: Use the shallowest heading hierarchy that lets readers navigate the document. Do not create subheadings where there are not at least two distinct subtopics. M6

122. Excessive bolding

Antidote: Reserve bold for a small number of scan-critical terms, labels, or UI elements; let sentence placement and wording carry most emphasis. M7

123. Bolded pseudo-quotations

Antidote: If a sentence is yours, present it as prose unless it is genuinely a callout worth visual emphasis; do not format invented maxims as if they were sourced quotations. M7

124. Blockquotes for the model’s own invented summary

Antidote: Use blockquotes for actual quoted material or clearly marked callouts, not to lend authority to your own sentence. R6

125. Horizontal-rule choreography

Antidote: Use section breaks where the information architecture changes; do not insert separators after every conversational beat. M7

126. Emoji navigation

Antidote: Use icons only when they add a stable semantic cue for the audience and medium; otherwise rely on words and accessible structure. C2

127. Parenthetical abbreviation eagerness

Antidote: Spell out an unfamiliar term only if readers need it, and introduce an abbreviation only if you will reuse it enough to justify the memory burden. C2

128. Title: Subtitle

Antidote: Choose the title shape that best tells readers what the piece is about. A colon is fine when the subtitle genuinely narrows or explains the title; do not use it as automatic prestige punctuation. M6

VI. Conversation: respond to the person, not the chatbot template

129. “Great question”

Antidote: Answer the question. Praise it only when the praise conveys useful information—for example, that it exposes a common misconception or an important edge case. M2

130. “You’re absolutely right”

Antidote: Separate acknowledgment from evaluation: confirm the part that is correct, qualify what is uncertain, and disagree plainly where needed. R11

131. “Exactly”

Antidote: Use agreement only when the user’s claim is actually exact. Otherwise say what is right and what needs adjustment. R11

132. “That’s a really interesting observation”

Antidote: If the observation is interesting, say what makes it consequential, unusual, or connected to something else; otherwise skip the compliment. D3

133. “Let’s unpack this”

Antidote: Begin with the first substantive distinction or fact. A1

134. “Let’s break it down”

Antidote: Break it down only when decomposition helps; otherwise answer in the natural form of the problem. D4

135. “Here’s a clean way to think about it”

Antidote: Present the model and tell the reader what it captures and what it leaves out. R7

136. “The short answer is…”

Antidote: Give the short answer as the first sentence; label it only when you are intentionally offering multiple levels of detail. M2

137. “The key distinction…”

Antidote: State the distinguishing criterion directly. P3

138. Mirroring the user’s framing

Antidote: Adopt the user’s terminology when it is accurate and useful; inspect loaded premises, ambiguous labels, and hidden assumptions before carrying them forward. D4

139. Restating the task before doing it

Antidote: Restate only when confirming constraints prevents error or the task is complex enough that scope needs to be made explicit. M2

140. The end-of-answer option menu

Antidote: Offer a next step only when there is one obvious continuation that materially helps the user; otherwise end when the answer is complete. M2

141. “If you’d like…”

Antidote: Omit generic offers. When follow-up is valuable, make it specific to a real unresolved dependency or decision. D3

142. The four follow-up branches

Antidote: Do not invent adjacent projects. Surface at most the next action that logically follows from the current goal. D4

143. Preemptive reassurance

Antidote: Reassure only when the reader has expressed concern or when a real risk is commonly misunderstood; pair reassurance with evidence or a concrete action. D4

144. Generic validation

Antidote: Validate a feeling, interpretation, or constraint only when it affects the answer. Otherwise engage the substance. D4

145. Therapeutic cadence outside therapeutic contexts

Antidote: Match tone to domain and stakes. Technical uncertainty needs technical clarity; ordinary inconvenience usually needs ordinary language. D1

146. Agreement before analysis

Antidote: Analyze first. Agreement, disagreement, or uncertainty should follow from the evidence. R11

147. The polite correction sandwich

Antidote: Correct the factual or logical issue directly, then add context or tact only where the relationship requires it. M2

148. The “you’re not wrong, but…” maneuver

Antidote: State the degree of correctness: ‘X is true under these conditions; Y changes the conclusion.’ R3

VII. Tone: choose a voice appropriate to the situation

149. Relentless helpfulness

Antidote: Permit ‘I don’t know,’ ‘there is not enough evidence,’ ‘this is not worth doing,’ or ‘the premise is wrong’ when those are the most useful answers. R3

150. Corporate warmth

Antidote: Use warmth proportionate to the relationship and medium. Prefer natural politeness over scripted enthusiasm. M2

151. Consultant voice

Antidote: Replace goals/constraints/stakeholders/frameworks with the ordinary nouns of the domain unless those terms are genuinely needed. C1

152. Textbook voice

Antidote: Teach only the prerequisites the reader needs for the current question. Skip definitions and background the audience already knows. D4

153. Marketing gloss

Antidote: Turn praise into claims that can be observed, compared, or measured. C1

154. Faux intimacy

Antidote: Do not simulate personal stakes. Use respectful, direct language and reserve emotional language for contexts where it is actually warranted. R11

155. Uniform patience

Antidote: Match brevity and intensity to context while staying civil; a fifth clarification may deserve a shorter answer than the first. M2

156. Emotional leveling

Antidote: Preserve relevant emotional facts: anger, grief, absurdity, urgency, fear, delight. Do not neutralize them unless neutrality is required by the genre. R11

157. The blandly reasonable center

Antidote: Represent the evidence distribution, not an automatic midpoint. Sometimes one view is better supported; sometimes uncertainty is genuinely wide. R3

158. Prestige neutrality

Antidote: Write in the register the audience and purpose require, even if that means colloquial, opinionated, technical, or strange. R8

159. Hyper-legibility

Antidote: Explain enough for the intended reader, then trust them. Leave obvious relationships implicit when spelling them out would only repeat the text. R12

VIII. Hedging and caveats: calibrate uncertainty instead of padding it

160. “It depends”

Antidote: Name the variables it depends on and, when possible, give a default recommendation under the most likely conditions. R3

161. “There is no one-size-fits-all answer”

Antidote: State the segmentation rule: which reader, case, risk profile, or constraint changes the answer. D4

162. “It’s important to note…”

Antidote: Delete the phrase and put the important fact in a prominent place or state its consequence. M2

163. “It’s worth noting…”

Antidote: State the note, or omit it if it does not change understanding or action. D3

164. “This does not necessarily mean…”

Antidote: Name the exact inference that the evidence does not support and why. R3

165. “That doesn’t mean X is wrong”

Antidote: Say what the evidence does and does not establish about X. R3

166. “May / might / can / could / often / typically” everywhere

Antidote: Choose the uncertainty marker that matches the evidence; use numbers or ranges when they exist, and use unqualified statements for well-established facts. R3

167. Recursive caveats

Antidote: Identify the one or two uncertainty sources that materially change interpretation. Put minor limitations where they belong instead of nesting hedges inside hedges. R3

168. Safety-shaped universals

Antidote: Give the domain-specific warning that changes the reader’s action, with conditions and rationale; omit boilerplate that does not apply. C1

169. The disclaimer moat

Antidote: Separate the recommendation, uncertainty, contraindications, and escalation criteria so the reader can see each one. C1

170. “Consult a professional” as ritual closure

Antidote: State when professional help is needed, what kind, and what question or symptom should trigger it. If escalation is not warranted, do not add the ritual. C1

IX. Reasoning: preserve causality, disagreement, and evidential boundaries

171. False dichotomy → synthesis

Antidote: First test whether the dichotomy is real. If it is false, show the missing options; if it is real, do not dissolve it merely to produce a pleasant synthesis. R7

172. Spectrumification

Antidote: Use a spectrum only when the variable is actually ordered or continuous and the intermediate positions have meaning. R7

173. Trade-offification

Antidote: Name the quantities being traded, the frontier or constraint, and who bears each cost. If both can improve simultaneously, do not invent a trade-off. C1

174. Frameworkification

Antidote: Introduce a framework only if it improves prediction, diagnosis, memory, or action beyond ordinary prose. D4

175. Category inflation

Antidote: Use the weakest accurate label: observation, list, classification, model, or theory. Do not promote each level automatically. D1

176. Abstraction ratchet

Antidote: Stop at the highest level justified by the evidence. When moving from case to pattern to principle, show the inference at each step. R3

177. The neat causal chain

Antidote: Name evidence for each causal link, competing paths, feedback loops, delays, and confounders that matter. R5

178. The three-factor diagnosis

Antidote: List the factors supported by evidence or domain knowledge, not the number that gives the nicest cadence. State whether the list is illustrative or exhaustive. R7

179. Vague causality

Antidote: Use causal verbs only when you can support mechanism or design; otherwise use association, sequence, prediction, or uncertainty language that matches the evidence. R5

180. Vague attribution

Antidote: Name the study, institution, dataset, expert, survey, or review whenever the authority matters to the claim. R6

181. Citation aura

Antidote: Attach a real citation to empirical claims, distinguish common knowledge from sourced facts, and do not let academic tone impersonate evidence. R7

182. Example-as-evidence slippage

Antidote: Label examples as illustrations. Use data, studies, or documented cases when you need evidence for frequency, causation, or generality. R7

183. Plausible specificity

Antidote: Mark invented, inferred, estimated, or hypothetical details explicitly. Verify names, dates, figures, and institutional procedures before presenting them as facts. R7

184. Objection inoculation

Antidote: Address objections in proportion to their strength and prevalence, and treat unresolved objections as unresolved. R7

185. Symmetrical steelmanning

Antidote: Steelman positions according to their actual evidence and relevance. Do not give fringe and mainstream claims identical rhetorical weight merely for symmetry. R7

186. The universal synthesis

Antidote: Specify whether theories are complementary, nested, empirically distinguishable, or genuinely incompatible. R7

187. “Both are true at different scales”

Antidote: Name the scales, variables, and mechanism that makes the claims compatible; otherwise choose or remain uncertain. R3

188. The unnecessary framework

Antidote: Answer the practical question first. Introduce a model only if it changes the recommendation or helps the reader reuse the reasoning. C1

189. Explanation-before-answer inversion

Antidote: Lead with the recommendation, result, or conclusion when the reader needs a decision; place rationale after it. C1M2

190. Answer-before-explanation template

Antidote: Lead with an answer when the question permits a clean answer; when uncertainty or definitions are essential to prevent a misleading yes/no, state that constraint first. C1

X. Synthetic profundity: earn significance

191. Significance inflation

Antidote: Replace claims of importance with effect size, consequence, scope, or the decision that changes because of the finding. C1

192. “This changes everything”

Antidote: List what changes, what does not, for whom, and on what timescale. R3

193. “The deeper point…”

Antidote: State the inference and show the premises connecting it to the evidence. R7

194. “What this really reveals…”

Antidote: Separate observation from interpretation: first what the evidence shows, then what you infer from it. R7

195. “The implications are profound”

Antidote: Name the implications and their magnitude; if you cannot, drop the adjective. C1

196. “In a very real sense…”

Antidote: Say whether the statement is literal, analogical, or metaphorical. If it is a metaphor, use it openly and test its limits. D1

197. The humanity ending

Antidote: End with humanity only when the argument has actually reached humanity. Otherwise end with the topic’s real consequence or unresolved question. R3

198. The identity ending

Antidote: Make identity claims only when the evidence concerns beliefs, roles, norms, or self-conception; do not attach identity to a technical topic for uplift. R3

199. The agency ending

Antidote: Name the decision-makers, available choices, and constraints instead of ending with a generic ‘we decide.’ A2

200. The horizon ending

Antidote: State the next unknown, experiment, decision, or dependency rather than staring rhetorically into an undefined future. R3

XI. Examples: prefer reality, texture, and honest representativeness

201. The frictionless fictional company

Antidote: Prefer documented cases. If you need a hypothetical, add realistic constraints, competing goals, and failure modes, and label it hypothetical. R14

202. The suspiciously pedagogical person

Antidote: Use a real person/case when available; otherwise give the hypothetical person enough context to make the decision genuinely constrained. D4

203. Safe canonical domains

Antidote: Choose examples from the domain most relevant to the reader or from the domain where you have genuine evidence; do not rotate through healthcare/finance/education for artificial breadth. D4

204. Evenly distributed examples

Antidote: Let examples cluster where expertise and evidence cluster. Breadth is useful only when generalization across domains is part of the claim. R7

205. Low sensory resolution

Antidote: When narrative or explanation benefits, include concrete objects, actions, places, timings, and observable details. R14

206. No irrelevant specificity

Antidote: Keep an apparently irrelevant detail when it establishes scene, credibility, chronology, or voice—but cut detail that only distracts. R2

207. Perfect relevance

Antidote: Allow real cases to contain noise and contradiction. Tell the reader which facts are incidental instead of silently cleaning reality into a parable. R7

208. Fabricated-realistic case-study voice

Antidote: Label synthetic cases prominently, explain what they are designed to illustrate, and avoid invented metrics or institutional details unless necessary. R7

XII. Information density: put people and actions back into prose

209. Noun pileups

Antidote: Unpack modifier stacks into clauses with actors and verbs. M1

210. Nominalization

Antidote: Turn buried actions back into verbs: ‘implementation of the policy’ → ‘the agency implemented the policy.’ R2

211. Abstract-subject sentences

Antidote: Put the actor, system, or event that actually does something in subject position when possible. A2

212. Agent deletion

Antidote: Name who decided, measured, paid, approved, harmed, or benefited unless the agent is truly irrelevant or unknown. A2

213. Information compression without lived texture

Antidote: Alternate abstraction with a concrete example, data point, scene, or procedure when the reader needs to ground the concept. R14

214. Adjective-modified noun phrases

Antidote: Move important modifiers into verbs or clauses and remove adjectives that do not change the reader’s understanding. M1

215. High lexical polish, low personal grain

Antidote: Preserve the writer’s recurring vocabulary, examples, judgments, and preferred rhythms unless they genuinely obstruct the reader. R11

XIII. Uncertainty: expose the boundary between fact and inference

216. Probabilistic confidence without calibration

Antidote: Use a number, range, confidence level, evidence grade, or explicitly bounded verbal term when the stakes justify it. R3

217. Confidence smoothing

Antidote: Differentiate established fact, source-backed claim, inference, estimate, speculation, and unknown—visibly in wording and citation. R3

218. Uncertainty laundering

Antidote: Carry uncertainty through the entire inference chain; do not let ‘may’ in the first sentence become certainty three sentences later. R3

219. The invisible source boundary

Antidote: Mark where information comes from: source, direct observation, calculation, inference, hypothetical example, or author judgment. R7

220. Plausibility preference

Antidote: When evidence is missing, say what would be plausible and what is actually known; do not silently substitute the former for the latter. R3

XIV. AI-polished human prose: improve the text without deleting the writer

221. Local register spikes

Antidote: Edit for document-level voice: either bring the surrounding prose up to the needed register or simplify the polished insertion so it belongs. R12

222. Vocabulary grafts

Antidote: Prefer the author’s normal precise word unless the new word adds needed meaning. R11

223. Smooth paragraph, rough document

Antidote: Revise structure before polishing sentences. Make claims, evidence, and section order coherent, then tune local style. R2

224. The polished-email transformation

Antidote: Preserve the original message length, decision, urgency, and emotional temperature unless the sender asks to change them. R11

225. Personality dilution

Antidote: Protect idiosyncratic phrases, humor, directness, examples, and first-person judgments that carry authorial identity. R11

226. Conflict deodorization

Antidote: State the disagreement, broken commitment, harm, or requested remedy accurately; adjust politeness without erasing the conflict. R11

227. Accidental prestige inflation

Antidote: Downgrade vocabulary until each technical or managerial term earns its place through precision. M3

228. Tone homogenization

Antidote: Maintain role-, person-, and genre-specific voices; build separate style examples rather than one organization-wide generic ‘professional’ voice. R8

229. AI-to-human feedback loops

Antidote: Treat popular ‘AI words’ as neither banned nor desirable by default; choose them for meaning, and periodically revisit style rules as language changes. R9R13

XV. False tells: do not turn style advice into superstition

230. Em dashes

Antidote: Do not ban them. Use an em dash when interruption, apposition, or a sharp turn is the right punctuation; vary the sentence patterns around it. R8

231. Semicolons

Antidote: Use semicolons when two closely related independent clauses deserve stronger connection than a period and less conjunction than a compound sentence. P2

232. Correct grammar

Antidote: Keep correct grammar unless the genre intentionally uses dialect, fragments, or conversational deviation. Do not add errors to prove humanity. R12

233. Long words

Antidote: Use the shortest word that preserves the needed precision; keep long technical terms when they are the audience’s exact language. D4

234. Markdown

Antidote: Use headings, lists, emphasis, and tables when they improve navigation or match the medium; remove them when prose would be clearer. A3M6

235. A single word like “delve”

Antidote: Judge clusters and function, not one token. Keep the word when it is the best word; replace it when it is merely habitual. R9

236. No typos

Antidote: Proofread. Do not manufacture mistakes as a humanity signal. R12

237. Formal tone

Antidote: Use formal tone when the genre, audience, stakes, or institution requires it; use a different register when it does not. D4

238. Repetition

Antidote: Repeat key terms when repetition preserves coherence or conceptual consistency; cut repetition that merely restates conclusions. M3

239. Formulaic writing

Antidote: Use conventions that help readers navigate a genre, but question formulas that force irrelevant sections, equal weighting, or canned conclusions. R8

240. “Sounds like AI” as an accusation

Antidote: Treat style analysis as diagnostic, not forensic. Identify the specific writing problem—vagueness, over-regularity, unsupported inference, inflated diction—and edit that problem without claiming authorship from style alone. R8R13

What the 240 antidotes reduce to

A list of 240 prohibitions makes good writing look impossibly fragile. Avoid this word. Avoid that punctuation mark. Never use a rhetorical question. Never make a list of three. Do not sound too polished, too neutral, or too helpful.

That is the wrong lesson.

Most of the 240 entries are manifestations of a much smaller set of failures: abstraction where specificity was available; rhetoric where evidence was available; symmetry where reality was asymmetric; structure where no navigational problem existed; certainty where uncertainty existed; synthesis where disagreement remained; inference presented with the texture of fact; and language chosen for the appearance of “good writing” rather than for the reader’s actual need.

The positive rules are much simpler.

Say who did what. Give the number. Name the source. Put the answer near the question. Keep the odd detail when it carries meaning. Use a list when readers need a list. Use parallelism when the ideas are genuinely parallel. Make a strong claim when the evidence is strong and a narrow claim when it is weak. Admit when you do not know. Let one side of an argument occupy more space when it deserves more space. Stop after the point lands.

A blacklist will eventually fail anyway. Models change. Humans absorb model habits. Models absorb human reactions to those habits. Research already documents identifiable stylistic differences between human and LLM writing as well as signs of human–LLM linguistic coevolution. R8R10

A durable writing system has to operate one level deeper:

For every sentence, paragraph, list, heading, qualification, and conclusion, ask what job it is doing for the reader. Then make it do that job with the least distortion, least ceremony, and most useful information the situation allows.

That is not a trick for sounding less like an LLM.

It is a demanding definition of good writing.

Sources

The codes used above point to the following sources. Repeated citation means the same documented principle applies to multiple antidotes; it does not imply that the source discusses the named LLM-ism itself.