What could be better than an em dash? They pepper my writing, adding dramatic pauses and emphasizing my biggest points. I love em dashes — so does AI.
The use — and overuse — of em dashes is, of course, a classic AI writing tell, along with such AI writing quirks as the “it’s not just this; it’s that” construction (which itself can be combined with an em dash) and lengthy sentences that seem to stretch into infinity.
Like plenty of other online writers, my articles are regularly accused of sounding like AI. While web-based AI detectors have repeatedly assured me that my stories sounded human, I wanted more details — and most of all, I wanted to discover if my em-dash obsession was the writing crutch that drew the most “you’re AI!” fire.
For the test, I turned to Claude, feeding 10 of my most recent articles to Claude Sonnet 4.6 (using the Claude Cowork) tool and giving it a simple prompt:
Can you look at my writing samples in the directory and list all the ways in which I sound like AI, including how often I use classic “AI tells” in my writing? Give me a ranked list.
I braced myself for the bad news, anticipating that overused em dashes (as I previously mentioned) would be my biggest — if false! — AI tell.
Turns out, not quite. Here’s what Claude ranked as my number-one “sound like AI” issue:
The parenthetical asides — 67 in ~11,700 words.
It’s the one pattern that’s both frequent and structural. Long sentences can be a rushing problem, em dashes can be a style choice, but constantly tucking clarifications into parentheses instead of committing to the sentence reads like AI hedging its bets — saying the thing while also quietly footnoting the exceptions. Human writers who do it this much usually get edited out of it.
Yep, it’s true, I’m a sucker for a good parenthetical, and it’s a habit my editors have (quite rightfully) called me out for. (I know, I’m doing it again.)
But rest assured, em dashes came in a close second:
Em/en dash overuse: 78 instances — roughly one every 150 words. AI uses em dashes as a crutch to splice clauses that should either be separate sentences or use a comma. Many of yours are fine, but the density is high.
And here’s the rest of the list:
- Long sentences: 21% of your sentences exceed 35 words, and your average is 25 words. AI tends to write long, technically-correct sentences that feel like they’re covering too much at once.
- “Actually” x15, “rather” x17 — both are filler hedges that AI (and AI-influenced writing) leans on. At your word count, “actually” shows up once every 775 words.
- “May” x14 + “might” x11 = 25 hedges — not alarming, but AI tends to hedge rather than commit. These add up.
- “It is/was/has/seems…” constructions: 14 times — the classic impersonal opener. Phrases like “It’s worth noting,” “It’s a snap to,” “It’s clear that” — AI loves starting sentences this way instead of making a direct claim.
- “Very” x15 — generic intensifier that doesn’t add meaning. Easy to cut.
Guilty as charged.
The good news, according to Claude, is that my writing generally does sound human, ranking just 3 out of 10 on the “sounds like AI” meter. Claude elaborated on my score, tossing in a few em dashes of its own for good measure:
- The vocabulary analysis is the main thing — you’re completely clean on the words that AI detectors and human readers actually flag. First-person voice is strong, sentence starters are varied and casual (“but,” “so,” “don’t”), and you commit to opinions rather than hedging everything into mush.
- The parentheticals and em dashes would read as stylistic quirks to most people, not AI tells. A detector might ding you for sentence length, but a human reader wouldn’t think “AI wrote this.”
- If anything, your writing reads more like a journalist who edits fast and doesn’t always tighten — which is a very human problem.
While I’m pleased to hear I mostly don’t sound like AI, Claude’s last point is a fair one – indeed, it echoes last week’s “critique, don’t rewrite” prompt, which makes an AI give you an honest evaluation of a writing sample.
In any event, I’ll try using those em dashes more sparingly in the future, and the same goes double for parentheticals.
That’s not just wishful thinking; it’s a promise.
