{"slug": "observations-on-writing-with-ai", "title": "Observations on Writing with AI", "summary": "Tom Tunguz, a writer of 16 years, tested an \"AI editorial council\" of three different models—Gemini, Claude, and OpenAI Codex—to edit his fourth draft, but the result was a \"fingerpaint disaster\" as each model imposed its own conflicting voice and style. The experiment revealed that AI struggles to mimic a human author's authentic voice, with one model delivering a \"casually cruel\" critique that dismissed the piece as a \"three-beer conversation mistaken for a finished essay.\" Tunguz concludes that the imperfections in human writing, like the pops of a vinyl record, are what make it good writing, a quality AI cannot replicate.", "body_md": "As I was paging through [Good Writing](https://www.amazon.com/Good-Writing-Ways-Improve-Sentences/dp/B0FDK8M9J5a), Anne Lamott’s new book, I wondered what AI would say about twisting cliches & finding hidden metaphors (chapters 18 & 19).\n\nOver the last 16 years of writing, I’ve [read books about writing](https://tomtunguz.com/finding-your-voice/), hired an editor, & used AI. I’ve fine-tuned models to mimic my voice, tested more than 10 AI systems, & written many post with AI, with some Hindenburgs I’ve kept public as proof despite my embarrassment.\n\nWriting is hard for AI. First, AI has its own voice : Gemini beams sunshine ; Claude’s is languid but sharp ; & OpenAI Codex is the most dispassionate. Writing in another voice is hard for people & AI.\n\nSo writing with a single model doesn’t work. What about an AI editorial council? The concept shines with code review. Why not blog review?\n\nAt my [fourth draft](https://tomtunguz.com/john-mcphee-four-draft-writing-method/), I asked Gemini, Claude, & OpenAI Codex to edit my work with each other. The result wasn’t an elegant mosaic but a fingerpaint disaster. Each model had its own voice. Like three editors with three visions of the piece, the AI models couldn’t agree on a consistent tone or style.\n\nAnd each is willing to deliver it directly, casually cruel in the name of being an editor.\n\nEg, this post:\n\nVerdict. This is a three-beer conversation mistaken for a finished essay. Pick one angle : the Lamott meditation, or the AI choir experiment, or the vinyl-flare theory. Develop it with specifics, quotes, images. As written, it’s 500 words of intelligent observation without a single indelible sentence.\n\n…imagine that daily farrago in triplicate.\n\nAI’s ability to synthesize images, video, text means anything can be created. What’s authentic? Imperfection.\n\nThe pops of a vinyl record, the solar flare on Kodachrome film, the imperfect analogy and the punctuation peccadilloes ([lovers of ampersands, unite!](https://tomtunguz.com/the-missing-letter/)), stand out.\n\nAI may generate digital reams of manuals & documentation, & may one day parrot the way we write authentically. But the imperfections of writing are what make it good writing.", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/observations-on-writing-with-ai", "canonical_source": "https://www.tomtunguz.com/observations-on-writing-with-ai/", "published_at": "2026-05-18 00:00:00+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-05-29 17:36:40.875627+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["generative-ai", "large-language-models", "ai-tools", "natural-language-processing"], "entities": ["Anne Lamott", "Gemini", "Claude", "OpenAI Codex", "Good Writing", "Tom Tunguz"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/observations-on-writing-with-ai", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/observations-on-writing-with-ai.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/observations-on-writing-with-ai.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/observations-on-writing-with-ai.jsonld"}}