I don't disagree. Especially the content that aims to demonstrate that a person is some kind of thinker in their field, it's easier to just have a machine vomit it out. Whatever the weird little dance on LinkedIn is, everyone involved knows it's fake.
I have a little experience with LinkedIn "influencers." I have zero doubt they use AI for posts- the ones I know hate LinkedIn and its culture but game the system for engagement to support whatever their other project/side hustle/plan is.
What a trash site. Garbage in and garbage out, but everyone has somehow agreed that it's necessary.
TL;DR: Pangram found AI in more than 40% of the longform LinkedIn posts it analyzed, while a breakup text Aki Ito received was flagged as 100% AI-generated. Ito spent weeks running posts, pitches, emails, and her own writing through the detector, arguing that the backlash over AI prose is ultimately about whether readers can trust that a named person actually formed the thoughts and feelings attached to their words.
I’m somewhat AI polish neutral, because I have met utterly brilliant people who cannot write a sentence to save their life. That’s not where their skill set lies. AI is trained on human writing, not some new language, so I have no problem with the punctuation or language used either.
However, like many other people, I believe that the more often everyone uses AI, the closer big tech AI comes getting out of the red - still without guard rails. And for some reason, I don’t trust either at all.
I’m submitting this reported first-person feature because it examines AI-generated writing as a problem of authorship, trust, and social accountability rather than just a technical detection challenge. Its examples, from workplace posts to intimate messages, show how synthetic prose complicates assumptions about who is speaking online.
mrpoopistan | 12 hours ago
I mean, if any place was going to be a rat's nest of AI slop, it's safe to say that LinkedIn was going to be it.
XkF21WNJ | 7 hours ago
For most of the LinkedIn content I'd even say it was an improvement.
I mean it was going to be bloated text without content anyway, so not having someone waste time on it is about the best you can hope for.
mrpoopistan | 3 hours ago
I don't disagree. Especially the content that aims to demonstrate that a person is some kind of thinker in their field, it's easier to just have a machine vomit it out. Whatever the weird little dance on LinkedIn is, everyone involved knows it's fake.
beetnemesis | 10 hours ago
I have a little experience with LinkedIn "influencers." I have zero doubt they use AI for posts- the ones I know hate LinkedIn and its culture but game the system for engagement to support whatever their other project/side hustle/plan is.
What a trash site. Garbage in and garbage out, but everyone has somehow agreed that it's necessary.
ohwhatfollyisman | 12 hours ago
whatever content on linkedin is not written with artificial intelligence is written with natural stupidity.
[OP] thisisinsider | 12 hours ago
TL;DR: Pangram found AI in more than 40% of the longform LinkedIn posts it analyzed, while a breakup text Aki Ito received was flagged as 100% AI-generated. Ito spent weeks running posts, pitches, emails, and her own writing through the detector, arguing that the backlash over AI prose is ultimately about whether readers can trust that a named person actually formed the thoughts and feelings attached to their words.
horseradishstalker | 8 hours ago
I think this nails it.
I’m somewhat AI polish neutral, because I have met utterly brilliant people who cannot write a sentence to save their life. That’s not where their skill set lies. AI is trained on human writing, not some new language, so I have no problem with the punctuation or language used either.
However, like many other people, I believe that the more often everyone uses AI, the closer big tech AI comes getting out of the red - still without guard rails. And for some reason, I don’t trust either at all.
[OP] thisisinsider | 12 hours ago
I’m submitting this reported first-person feature because it examines AI-generated writing as a problem of authorship, trust, and social accountability rather than just a technical detection challenge. Its examples, from workplace posts to intimate messages, show how synthetic prose complicates assumptions about who is speaking online.
clean-links | 12 hours ago
Cleaned link: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-detector-writing-experiment-what-i-learned-2026-9
Tracking parameters were removed from the original URL(s).