Thanks, Ryan. Excellent. And the second sentence that resembles AI talk- that use of a triplet (what is the correct term?) is very distracting, even frustrating, when listening to YouTube videos where the voice is AI.
The sentence pattern “It’s not X, but Y” uses a two-item parallel structure, where the descriptor Y is offered as a correction of X. It assigns emphasis to both descriptors, especially the second. The emphasis can be made much stronger by splitting the descriptors into two independent clauses separated by an em-dash (“It’s not X — it’s Y.”) or a period (“It’s not X. It’s Y.”), as AI models often do.
One problem is that this structure has become clichéd. Another is that these descriptors, and the ideas being conveyed, often do not warrant such obtrusive emphasis. In great writing, choices about syntax and emphasis align with the subject matter. Clickbait isn’t improved by making it read like a Churchill speech.
A “triplet” is a series of three synonyms — e.g., “promise, agree, and covenant” (see Elegant Legal Writing [https://bit.ly/elw-book] § 2.4 or, for a longer list, Bryan Garner’s The Redbook § 12.2).
This outline briefly explains Medicaid planning, which is one part of the more extensive estate planning process. It will not replace the assistance of a qualified attorney—it is a summarization, not a blueprint. There are too many pitfalls for you to attempt to plan for Medicaid eligibility on your own, and far too much is at stake. The law changes constantly, making it difficult for even professionals to keep up. I have created this outline with the hope that you will gain a certain amount of issue awareness, which may alert you to potential courses of action that could save your family significant amounts of precious assets and help assure an enhanced level of care should you ever need to enter a nursing home.
Note: I may have run this through Grammarly Pro some time back.
I’d guess human, with medium-high confidence. The structure of the second sentence is (infamously) typical of AI. But the rest of the text doesn’t ring AI alarm bells for me. I also see a couple of debatable word choices and minor blemishes that I wouldn’t expect in AI text, which tends to be overpolished: “more extensive” is redundant; I’d write “summary” rather than “summarization”; I would move the “even” in the penultimate sentence back by one word (“even for professionals…” rather than “for even professionals”); I’d likely change “with the hope that” to “in the hope that.” @Joseph Gilsoul
I actually accused the corporate in-house counsel of using AI in one of my replies. Thanks to YOUR book, I'm polishing an appellate brief due in Colorado by September 14. I cite you.
In this case, Defendant’s counterclaim meets none of those elements. First, while Defendant asserts that this action was filed against her in order to silence her, it was not. Second, it is Defendant, not Plaintiffs, who has taken willful and improper action in the course of these proceedings by filing over a dozen frivolous motions, one of which had 88 exhibits. Third, while Defendant constantly complains about how much stress this case is causing her, Plaintiffs suggest that any alleged stress Defendant may be encountering is due to her vendetta against Mr. C and the time and effort she spends on filing frivolous motions, not because of any improper actions Plaintiffs have taken, of which there are none. Therefore, Defendant’s counterclaim could not withstand a motion to dismiss based upon a claim for abuse of process.
Human, with medium confidence. This paragraph uses a predictable, formulaic structure often found in legal briefs, so it’s plausible that it could be written by AI, but I don’t see any of the telltale signs of AI — just the telltale signs of an attorney. I would thus choose human based on my default expectation that most text is human-written unless the evidence suggests otherwise. AI models might also smooth out some of the standard legal departures from concision (e.g., revising "willful and improper" to "improper").
Thanks, Ryan. Excellent. And the second sentence that resembles AI talk- that use of a triplet (what is the correct term?) is very distracting, even frustrating, when listening to YouTube videos where the voice is AI.
The sentence pattern “It’s not X, but Y” uses a two-item parallel structure, where the descriptor Y is offered as a correction of X. It assigns emphasis to both descriptors, especially the second. The emphasis can be made much stronger by splitting the descriptors into two independent clauses separated by an em-dash (“It’s not X — it’s Y.”) or a period (“It’s not X. It’s Y.”), as AI models often do.
One problem is that this structure has become clichéd. Another is that these descriptors, and the ideas being conveyed, often do not warrant such obtrusive emphasis. In great writing, choices about syntax and emphasis align with the subject matter. Clickbait isn’t improved by making it read like a Churchill speech.
A “triplet” is a series of three synonyms — e.g., “promise, agree, and covenant” (see Elegant Legal Writing [https://bit.ly/elw-book] § 2.4 or, for a longer list, Bryan Garner’s The Redbook § 12.2).
This outline briefly explains Medicaid planning, which is one part of the more extensive estate planning process. It will not replace the assistance of a qualified attorney—it is a summarization, not a blueprint. There are too many pitfalls for you to attempt to plan for Medicaid eligibility on your own, and far too much is at stake. The law changes constantly, making it difficult for even professionals to keep up. I have created this outline with the hope that you will gain a certain amount of issue awareness, which may alert you to potential courses of action that could save your family significant amounts of precious assets and help assure an enhanced level of care should you ever need to enter a nursing home.
Note: I may have run this through Grammarly Pro some time back.
I’d guess human, with medium-high confidence. The structure of the second sentence is (infamously) typical of AI. But the rest of the text doesn’t ring AI alarm bells for me. I also see a couple of debatable word choices and minor blemishes that I wouldn’t expect in AI text, which tends to be overpolished: “more extensive” is redundant; I’d write “summary” rather than “summarization”; I would move the “even” in the penultimate sentence back by one word (“even for professionals…” rather than “for even professionals”); I’d likely change “with the hope that” to “in the hope that.” @Joseph Gilsoul
I actually accused the corporate in-house counsel of using AI in one of my replies. Thanks to YOUR book, I'm polishing an appellate brief due in Colorado by September 14. I cite you.
In this case, Defendant’s counterclaim meets none of those elements. First, while Defendant asserts that this action was filed against her in order to silence her, it was not. Second, it is Defendant, not Plaintiffs, who has taken willful and improper action in the course of these proceedings by filing over a dozen frivolous motions, one of which had 88 exhibits. Third, while Defendant constantly complains about how much stress this case is causing her, Plaintiffs suggest that any alleged stress Defendant may be encountering is due to her vendetta against Mr. C and the time and effort she spends on filing frivolous motions, not because of any improper actions Plaintiffs have taken, of which there are none. Therefore, Defendant’s counterclaim could not withstand a motion to dismiss based upon a claim for abuse of process.
Human, with medium confidence. This paragraph uses a predictable, formulaic structure often found in legal briefs, so it’s plausible that it could be written by AI, but I don’t see any of the telltale signs of AI — just the telltale signs of an attorney. I would thus choose human based on my default expectation that most text is human-written unless the evidence suggests otherwise. AI models might also smooth out some of the standard legal departures from concision (e.g., revising "willful and improper" to "improper").