I was writing a speech for an end-of-the-year ceremony recognizing my students moving up to their next school. It’s one of many speeches, announcements, recommendation letters, and notifications I compose on any given day.
I entered a quote I had written into an AI prompt with instructions to produce a concise, inspiring speech for my fourth graders moving up based on it. I was impressed with the output: It was well structured, followed my conventions, and did a decent organizational job. Yet, it was missing the most important aspect, something I call “personification.”
The biggest mistake users make using AI to write is overlooking the visible lack of substance and eerie wording in LLM outputs. In fact, according to a study by researchers at four U.S. universities, AI chatbots have linguistic fingerprints that reveal which model is used: In five popular AI chatbots, distinct verbal quirks emerged.
It is the personification a human adds that’s absent in AI outputs. Understanding this can help everyone in your school community write better, not using AI as a crutch but rather as a partner–a partner who can put together good looking, well-structured passages, but with the need for the human touch to personify it.
The Personification Two-Step
Let me illustrate with a common example of what many school leaders are writing: letters of recommendation.
In years past, writing a good letter of recommendation would take me, a quick writer, 25-30 minutes to compose. Not bad, but when you add up the half dozen requests all happening at the same time, along with all my other writing tasks, it gets overwhelming. Normally, writing those six letters alone would take three hours.
Now, I take a copy of the requester’s resume, remove their name and identifying information, and ask the AI to write me a letter of recommendation. I can add into the prompt, positive, praiseworthy tone, or more neutral for someone with whom I am not so impressed.
Using this prompt and an attached resume takes 2-3 minutes to get an output. I will add their name and title that were previously removed. But the biggest gap is the personal touch: personification. This is where I go back and take very important steps.
- I shift the tone from a rigid style even an AI that claims to know my writing style has. This reinforces that the human element has to be integrated and;
- I add unique details only I know and on which I can elaborate. For instance, that one time the teacher stayed until 6:30 PM to make sure a student of theirs was picked up when the family had an emergency. I can speak to the empathy and character of the teacher in a way the AI neither knows nor understands.
As far as writing articles like this one, I remain dutifully old school. I prefer to write from inspiration, and then go back and edit. I may add a sentence, possibly even a passage that was adapted from an AI output, nothing more.
Don’t get me wrong–I have tested a concept article with AI. And then I scrapped it. The AI cannot give me the natural, conversational tone that I can. To me, good writing means the author is speaking to you. An AI speaks at you, kind of like an instruction manual.
As far as recognizing my tone, the AI can guess at my intonation, but not in a consistent manner. Here, you can feel it come off the page, like a story. An AI puts words together in a calculated, meaningful way but that substance is persistently missing. This is the nuance that is just plain absent.
Crafting A Partnership
As a school leader and author, I am selfishly happy AI doesn’t get nuanced, because that means learners and leaders like me must continue to develop the very abstract skill of writing. The exercise helps me work out my mental muscles.
Another significant challenge with relying on AI for writing is the odd tendency to mash nearby paragraphs together, often creating inaccurate or just plain false assumptions, or vaguely near estimates. AI outputs can give us help with those early questions when we query, offering options we may not have considered but when we dig deeper, when we really write from nuance, humans clearly own writing. Ignoring this will only illuminate AI overuse in student or adult outputs. AI lacks that embodied self awareness.
An MIT meta-analysis confirms this: the combination of human and AI works best when each partner can do the thing they do better than the other, and there is a synergy in this partnership. AI excels at rapid data processing and drafting (essentially calculations), while humans add that critical thinking, empathy, and final context. Humans must check the output and revise, remove linguistic fingerprints, and personify the content.
Understanding this balance provides a hybrid method that helps us work better without losing our natural thinking skills. Ignoring it creates obvious, almost embarrassing attempts at professionals intent to be positive, such as this letter an administrator emailed, copied straight from a chatbot.
The Bottom Line
I have found AI to be a helpful and efficient writing partner for quick starter thoughts and organizational structure. However, human nuance and embodied self-awareness win every time when it comes to qualitative and intuitive writing. AI can assist with brainstorming, research and editing, but it cannot replace authentic emotions, life experiences, imagination and unique voice.
Consider this as a guideline for reminding students and school communities that writing is one of the most important critical thinking skills to help develop the mind and express creative thought.
