Overthinking

 

Along with checking for proper spelling, my editing process includes double-checking words to make sure they mean what I think they mean.

Recent examples: 

Panacea. I used it to mean "cure-all." I was right, but I felt compelled to double-check.

Same thing with proscribe. It looked wrong. Did I mean to use the word prescribe? 

And the same overthinking had me arguing with myself about infer. Was I confusing it with imply?

 

NOTE:

Proscribe means to forbid or outlaw while prescribe means to recommend.

The writer implies (hints), and the listener or reader infers (draws a conclusion).

 

Upscale Oops!

The upscale restaurant had an upscale bathroom.

An interior decorator made it feel comfortable and welcoming. More like a living room than a bathroom.

But as the restaurant soon learned the designer lamp and lampshade that were perfect for the design aesthetic were a failure for installation in a bathroom.

Oops!

"Please do not throw trash in the lampshade." Just a few words on a Post-It note tell a full story.

Polished vs. Interesting

 

We've confused being polished with being interesting. And I blame that on ChatGPT, Claude, and the rest of the AI gang.

Not because AI is bad at writing. It's often annoyingly competent. It can organize ideas, tidy up sentences and produce something perfectly acceptable in seconds. That's exactly the problem. "Perfectly acceptable" is becoming the new default.

The result? We're wallpapering the internet with competence.

But as a writer, my goal is not just competence. It’s about developing memorable ideas … and they rarely arrive dressed sensibly. They stumble in sideways. They start as a throwaway comment, a ridiculous comparison, or a question that makes everyone in the room pause for a second longer than feels comfortable. Creativity has always had the manners of a scruffy dog. It wanders off the path, rolls in something questionable, then somehow comes back carrying exactly what you needed.

Algorithms don't really do that. They smooth the edges. They average things out. They're brilliant at predicting the next word. Less brilliant at inventing the sentence that shouldn't work but somehow does.

That's why I'm becoming suspicious of anything that feels too neat. The perfect LinkedIn post. The flawless marketing framework. The universal formula for creativity. They all remind me of hotel artwork. Technically fine, but nobody has ever gone back to look at it.

Maybe the competitive advantage isn't working harder to sound professional. Maybe it's refusing to sand off the rough edges that make your thinking recognizably yours. Different has always looked a little weird at first. That's usually how you know it's worth paying attention to.

Don’t confuse being competent with being compelling. They're not the same thing. One gets approval. The other gets remembered.

LinkedIn and AI Slop

Every few months, the internet invents a new button that's supposed to save us from ourselves.

This time it's LinkedIn’s "Seems like AI slop."

My first response was positive, but then I started asking questions: 

• Who’s reviewing these reports? 
  
  
• What action will be taken by the person/people doing the reviewing? 
  
  
• What’s the likelihood of people just using it to report anything they simply don't like?

Hmmmm, maybe the answer isn't another reporting tool.

Maybe it's scrolling past things that don't deserve your attention whether it’s AI generated slop or human generated slop. You know what I’m talking about: the content equivalent of instant mashed potatoes … technically food, but nobody's excited about it. Generic. Weightless. Beige. Gone from your memory before you've finished scrolling.

Not everything needs a button. The best way to kill bad content is to starve it, not report it.

_________________________

One more question for you: Is this a move from LI to limit AI posts/comments or just another way to train the AI they offer to write your posts/comments?