← Previous Next →

Your Voice

Your voice is a very important part of your text. It gives it style. It sets it apart. Your voice in your writing reflects your personality. It is like a thumbprint or seal that verifies that this is your work. What gives your text "voice"? Your choice of words, sentence structure, tone, and the rhythm of the words. AI-written text has its own voice. Sanitised enthusiasm. It often uses words that we'd rarely put together. The rhythm is unnaturally uniform. If you are writing in Australia, it will use em-dashes in the wrong way (with spaces either side). It lacks a creative soul or opinionated edge.

To illustrate this, I've purposely used a controversial subject in the following.

I wrote this text as an example:

I am all for unity, but there is a "unity" that is not unity. It requires us to tolerate things that we know are wrong.

That is not unity.

That's an uneasy truce. (At any moment there could be war.)

Unity can only be achieved between two groups when they both subscribe to the same core values and submit to the same basic rules. This can be achieved between two Christian denominations, if we can realise that we took up some fringe matters and blew them out of proportion.
Between religions would be another matter, though I think some people would like the state religion to be Omnism.

And no, I'm not a raving eccentric. It's not so far-fetched as you'd think. King Charles wanted to be called the "Defender of Faith" rather than the traditional "Defender of the Faith". In other words, the Supreme Governor of the Church of England is in favour of religious pluralism. (The UK Parliament and constitutional laws govern the British monarchy. The law would have had to be changed so that he could use his preferred title. It was not changed. However, more recently the Buckingham Palace Sovereign Grant Report has revised its operational descriptions to state that The King "protects the space for faith within the multi-faith nation". The King has no spiritual authority over the church and cannot force religious pluralism onto them even if he likes the idea.)

Archbishop Desmond Tutu's book titled "God Is Not a Christian: And Other Provocations" is in favour of interfaith ideas, and I quote:

We should in humility and joyfulness acknowledge that the supernatural and divine reality we all worship in some form or other transcends all our particular categories of thought and imagining . . . we should seek to share all insights we can and be ready to learn, for instance, from the techniques of the spiritual life that are available in religions other than our own. It is interesting that most religions have a transcendent reference point, a mysterium tremendum, that comes to be known by deigning to reveal itself, himself, herself, to humanity; that the transcendent reality is compassionate and concerned; that human beings are creatures of this supreme . . . in some way, with a high destiny that hopes for an everlasting life lived in close association with the divine.

To be honest, I was shocked to find that this man, whom we hold up so high, is himself also a proponent of religious pluralism… He stated that most religions worship the same God, though imagined differently. I'm cynical that we could, as he says, "learn from the techniques … in religions other than our own". For example, Christians and Muslims could not learn from each other, even if we're not talking about Jihad and Fatwas.

Christians and Muslims will never agree about who Jesus is. The Qur'an says, 'Those who say, “Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary,” have certainly fallen into disbelief.' (Al-Ma'idah 5:72) Even the Old Testament calls him God, "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6).
The Qur'an even denies that Jesus was crucified.

Even if people could compromise about who Jesus is and about the relevance of the cross, every now and again someone will come to their senses and say, "Enough". And then the new enemy will be that intolerant infidel who, as oil won't mix with water, refuses to compromise and staunchly identifies only with Jesus.

Religion divides. Someone creating a version of Omnism will face a very uphill battle.

Compare with how it sounds when "fixed" by AI:

I am all for unity, but not every unity is true unity. Some forms of unity ask us to set aside what we believe to be wrong and to call the result peace. That is not unity; it is a truce. A truce is held together by tolerance, and tolerance can be withdrawn.

True unity requires shared core values and shared basic rules. Between Christian denominations, such unity is possible, provided that fringe matters are kept in proportion. Between religions, it is far more difficult, because what divides them is not fringe at all.

Some would like to see a single state religion, Omnism, in which all faiths are blended. The idea is not so distant as it may seem. King Charles has expressed a preference for the title Defender of Faith over the traditional Defender of the Faith, a preference that signals openness to religious pluralism at the highest level of the Church of England.

Respected religious leaders have moved in a similar direction. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in God Is Not a Christian, encouraged people to acknowledge that the divine transcends all particular categories and to learn from the spiritual wisdom of other traditions. I was surprised to find that a figure so widely admired had reached the same conclusion.

I remain cautious, however. Christians and Muslims could not easily unite, even setting aside the most contentious disputes.

Christians and Muslims will never agree about who Jesus is. The Qur'an teaches that those who call the Messiah the son of Mary have fallen into disbelief (Al-Ma'idah 5:72). The Hebrew Scriptures, meanwhile, speak of a child born to us who is called Mighty God and Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6). The Qur'an further denies the crucifixion; the Christian faith rests upon it.

These differences are not resolved by tolerance alone. People may compromise for a time, but sooner or later someone reaches the point of saying: enough. At that point, the one who holds exclusively to Christ may become the new outsider: not for rejecting others, but for refusing to blend.

Religion divides. Anyone attempting to create a version of Omnism would face a very uphill battle.

Feel the difference?

You may think the AI-sanitised version is better? Maybe. But the original is mine. It has my voice. The second is a machine trying to please the ears. The rhythm is too symmetrical. There is no emotion. I use intentional grammatical quirks for effect. It does not.

What do I mean by "grammatical quirks"?

How about my style:

After it rewrote it, it proclaimed that the text was fixed:

  • Specifics neutralised — Jihad/Fatwas, "raving eccentric", "intolerant infidel", and "oil won't mix with water" are gone; the long Tutu quote is summarised.
  • Symmetrical rhythm — balanced pairs ("Between Christian denominations… Between religions…"; "The Qur'an teaches… The Hebrew Scriptures, meanwhile…") and parallel closers ("not for rejecting others, but for refusing to blend").
  • Charitable tone — "I am all for unity"; respectful framing of Muslim and Christian positions; no mockery.
  • Argument preserved — false unity as truce, shared values/rules, denominational vs. interfaith distinction, Omnism's real-world traction (King Charles, Tutu), religion dividing, the Qur'an/Isaiah disagreement on Jesus, and the closing point that the exclusive believer becomes the new outsider. The anti-Omnism stance stays clear, so it shouldn't read as promoting pluralism.

Some of the changes are just better English, but in the process, it killed it. It has no punch. It almost sounds like those who would push for pluralism would be doing a good thing. The "spirit" of what I wrote is completely lost. I really hate it.

The AI "fixed" version also contains an incorrect implication that the highest level of the Church of England is open to religious pluralism. I did not say that, and I do not believe it.

It also says "no mockery" - where was I mocking? I imply that compromisers would "come to their senses". But mocking? Hardly. I really think the AI works overtime to sound nice, and therefore removes anything that could jar just a little. But that "jar" can give the article punch and character. AI-written text is too smooth, too pleasant, far too PC.

I told my AI that I'd updated the file and asked it to list any instances of mockery in the whole text. It replied:

Mockery aimed at people (in the "example" text):

  • "come to their senses" implies compromisers are senseless.
  • "In other words, the Supreme Governor … is in favour of religious pluralism" — ironic gloss on King Charles.

Mockery/contempt in the commentary (aimed at the AI, not people):

  • "it proclaimed that the text was fixed" (loaded sarcasm).
  • "it killed it … I really hate it."
  • "works overtime to sound nice … far too PC."

Verdict: the only mockery of people is the implication that compromisers are senseless; everything else is sarcasm or contempt at the AI's style. Note the AI's "no mockery" bullet describes its own rewrite, not your original — so it isn't actually accusing you of mocking.

← Previous: The Creative Process and AI Next: Driving AI creatively →