How to Spot AI Content: When Writing Becomes Lego Instructions
How rigid content templates are training your prospects to ignore you
The fifth blog in a series discussing the great enshittification of the written word
The movie The Big Lebowski opens with Bob Dylan’s song, “The Man in Me“ playing while a tumbleweed rolls through Los Angeles, followed by Sam Elliott’s wandering narration about “the Dude.” The story seems to ramble without purpose until suddenly, everything connects. Elliott’s narration doesn’t follow a formula or announce a three-act structure upfront. You trust his quintessential voice and follow along, like that tumbleweed finding its own path through the city.
Unfortunately, that’s not how B2B content works anymore; I’m not sure if it ever did, but now it’s at an all-time low. I’m watching another webinar where the presenter clicks to the next slide with a structure something like this:
Introduction ‘In today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape...’
Key Benefit 1 ‘First, our solution provides...’
Key Benefit 2 ‘Second, we deliver...’
Key Benefit 3 ‘Third, customers benefit from...’
Then comes the 30-60-90 day implementation or adoption plan.
Month one: awareness
Month two: consideration
Month three: decision
I close the tab and open my news feed. Every blog post follows the same rhythm. Problem statement. Example. Explanation. Transition. Problem statement. Example. Explanation. Transition. It’s professional and it’s polished, but it’s also a snoozer.
This is what happens when AI turns content creation into a set of LEGO instructions. We’ve automated ourselves into a structural straightjacket where every piece of content—from your marquee product launch to your thought leadership—follows the exact same template. When everyone’s using the same formula, nobody stands out, and you’re floating in that abysmal, dreaded, AI “sea of sameness“ that we all know and love.[1]
The structural rigidity diagnosis
Marketing directors and content leaders should pull up the last six months of content and lay them side by side. You’ll probably have a product launch announcement, thought leadership blog, webinar follow-up, and with any luck, a customer case study. Now remove the product names and specific details. What do you notice? I’d put money on the fact that they’re all the same article with different words plugged in. Your entire content calendar has become marketing Mad Libs.[2]
Have you seen the pattern? Open your last five blog posts and count how many follow this exact structure:
Introduction with an industry trend or factoid mentioned
Three main points (always three)
Each point follows a claim, then an example, then an explanation, and then a transition
A summary that restates the three points
And finally, a conclusion with call-to-action
When more than three out of five follow this pattern, you’re filling out a template rather than creating content. Prospects can predict your structure after reading two paragraphs, so they stop reading, and your content quickly fades into the undifferentiated background.
Why buyers can’t tell you apart
Not only does your formulaic content feel robotic, but I’d suspect it doesn’t really perform. I’ve watched marketing leaders explain to their bosses and boards why content engagement dropped after implementing “AI writing tools.” More content produced, fewer people reading it. The math doesn’t add up until you realize what’s happening.
So, what’s the problem? It’s quite simple. Buyers can’t differentiate between vendors anymore. When sales teams ask prospects what they thought of the whitepaper or product brief, they get a “I haven’t read this at all and stop wasting my time” response. All of the content all blends together. Prospects are reading five competitor sites in a row, and every single one follows the same structure, uses the same language, and makes the same three-point arguments. Content marketing leaders report that their “most efficient” quarters (most content produced) often correlate with their lowest engagement periods. The content factory is running at full capacity, but buyers aren’t paying attention, and no one is buying their wares (metaphorically and in reality).
Combined with AI junkwords, excessive punctuation, and humanizer patterns from earlier in this series, structural rigidity creates content that prospects have learned to ignore before they finish the first paragraph.[3],[4],[5] You’ve trained your audience to scroll past anything with your company’s name on it.
Framework vs. formula
So should we just wing it? Write stream-of-consciousness posts and hope for the best? Hardly.
Structure itself isn’t the enemy. The issue is understanding the difference between a framework and a formula. Jerry Seinfeld’s approach to observational comedy illustrates this perfectly. He has a structure (setup, observation, punchline), but it serves the joke rather than constraining it. Every bit feels spontaneous, even though it’s carefully crafted. The structure is invisible because it supports the content.
Frameworks give you guardrails while leaving room for personality and variation. Formulas tell you exactly what goes where and strip out all flexibility. Structured flexibility means having architecture that supports your message without restricting your voice.
Compare a TED Talk to a corporate keynote that follows the template exactly. The TED Talk feels natural even though it’s structured. The corporate keynote feels robotic because following the structure matters more than delivering the message. Good structure serves the message rather than controlling it.
The one technique that actually works
Write like you’re explaining something important to one smart person. Not to “target audiences” or “key stakeholders” or “decision-makers.” To one actual person you’re talking to.
The best class I ever took was a 3-day presentation skills course. The instructor taught us about presentations, not about the content, but how to mechanically deliver it. One rule stuck with me – don’t speak unless you’re looking at someone in the eyes. Not scanning the room. Not staring at your slides. One person, direct eye contact, complete your thought. Then, if you need to move, shut up, walk with purpose, and stop. Make eye contact with the next person and make your next point.
That same principle applies to writing. Before you write your next piece of content, picture one specific person from your target audience. Someone you’ve actually spoken with. Then explain the concept to them directly. Skip the presenting. Skip the marketing. Maintain that “eye contact” throughout the entire piece.
Your natural speech doesn’t organize itself into “Introduction, three key points, summary, conclusion.” It flows based on what the other person needs to understand next. It includes tangents that matter and skips obvious transitions. It uses emphasis where emphasis belongs, not where the template says it should go. And it doesn’t continually summarize the previous point.
Questions to ask yourself
Stop thinking about implementation frameworks. Give this a try:
Before you write
Who is the one person I’m writing this for?
What do they actually need to understand?
How would I explain this while talking to them right now?
While you’re writing
Am I following a template or my thinking, however wandering it may be (remember, it’s easier to cut than add)?
Would I actually say this sentence out loud to someone?
Am I using structure to clarify my ideas or hide behind formality?
After you draft
Can I cut this in half without losing the meaning?
Does this sound like me, or like a corporate memo generator?
Would anyone notice the difference between this and my competitor’s content?
That last question is the one that matters most.
The Dude abides
I’m back watching webinars. But now, I can see the pattern everywhere, and they’re a bit painful to watch. The rigid structure, the predictable rhythm, and the LEGO instructions approach to what should be genuine communication all drive me batty.
The presenter clicks through the same slides. Introduction. Three benefits. Conclusion. The 30-60-90 plan. Snooze, again.
I used to think this was professional, but now I see it for what it is: a formula that makes the writer’s job easier while making the reader work harder. It lets you avoid the hard work of actually thinking about what your audience needs to hear and how they need to hear it.
The Dude didn’t follow anyone’s formula. He went with what the situation called for, not what the template demanded. Your content can do the same.
The companies that break free from these templates won’t be the ones producing the most content. They’ll be the ones producing content that gets read.
Your prospects can tell the difference. Can you?
The Dude abides. Maybe your content should too.
Next in the series “Content depth and authenticity issues: When AI mistakes word count for value”
About David Sweenor
Books: Artificial Intelligence | Generative AI Business Applications | The Generative AI Practitioner’s Guide | The CIO’s Guide to Adopting Generative AI | Modern B2B Marketing | The PMM’s Prompt Playbook
Founder of TinyTechGuides, David Sweenor is a top 25 analytics and AI thought leader and influencer, international speaker, consultant and advisor, and acclaimed author with several patents. He is a product marketing leader, analytics practitioner, and specialist in the business application of AI, ML, data science, IoT, and business intelligence.
With over 25 years of hands-on business analytics experience, Sweenor has supported organizations including Alation, Alteryx, TIBCO, SAS, IBM, Dell, and Quest, in advanced analytic roles.
Follow David on Twitter @DavidSweenor and connect with him on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidsweenor/.
Need help with PMM? Let me know.
[1] Sweenor, David. “Stop Blending In: Creating Content that Actually Matters.” TinyTechGuides, February 3, 2025. https://tinytechguides.com/blog/stop-blending-in-creating-content-that-actually-matters/.
[2] Sweenor, David. “Marketing Mad Libs: Prompt Variables for Smarter Content Automation.” prompts.tinytechguides.com, February 11, 2025. https://prompts.tinytechguides.com/p/b2b-pmm-prompt-engineering-level
[3] Sweenor, David. “Spotting AI junk words: Why AI still can’t write like humans.” TinyTechGuides, November 11, 2024.https://tinytechguides.com/blog/spotting-ai-junk-words-why-ai-still-cant-write-like-humans/.
[4] Sweenor, David. “Punctuation Pandemonium: When AI Content Goes Wild.” TinyTechGuides, Sept 6, 2025. https://tinytechguides.com/blog/punctuation-pandemonium-when-ai-content-goes-wild/.
[5] Sweenor, David. “How to Spot AI Content: the Humanizer Trap Destroying Your Writing” TinyTechGuides, Sept 20, 2025. https://tinytechguides.com/blog/how-to-spot-ai-content-the-humanizer-trap-destroying-your-writing/.
Thanks for the restack Mike!