But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow.

• George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946)

Before ChatGPTisms, sloppy writing was signposted by Orwellisms. There's a political kind (to euphemize “firebombing a village” vaguely as “neutralize unreliable elements”), but I’m interested in the mundane kind: lazy phrases you default to when you can’t articulate exactly what you mean.

For years, I visualized this as: your idea is shaped like a nuanced path, but without finding [...]

---

Outline:

(01:44) I don't let AI compose ANY original writing for me.

(04:05) So, maybe use AI, but revise all the common signs?

(06:11) So, maybe use AI, but keep obvious signs in defiance?

(07:33) So, maybe use AI, but ask for outputs in a non-AI style?

(09:44) So what if I'm stuck! I'm not a luddite, I'll just use AI.

The original text contained 4 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.