I have seen people trying to make their AI generated academic writing sound casual to make it sound natural and identify as human written. Some people also say you should deliberately make mistakes or remove every em dash, and avoid every formal word to make your AI generated work look human.

Honestly, that does not solve the problem.

The difficulty with some drafts from ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek or Kimi or any AI is that the language seems to do more work than the idea. You read a long sentence, then realise that its actual point could have been expressed more clearly.

This guide shows how to revise those sentences.

Each red box contains an AI-style example and the green box gives a human (but academic) revision.

Read the explanation after each pair: the aim is to understand the editing decision, not memorise a list of replacement words.

1. Remove contrasts that add emphasis but little meaning

One pattern worth checking is negative parallelism: “not just X, but Y”, “not merely X, but also Y”, or “it is not about X; it is about Y”. They can express a useful distinction, but they can also give an ordinary statement an unnecessarily dramatic build-up.

Let us look at some examples of patterns you mostly see in AI generated sentences and how to humanise them by yourself.

Example 1

“Not merely … but also …”

AI version: “Unpredictable shift schedules were not merely an organisational inconvenience, but they were also a source of difficulty for nurses arranging childcare and adequate rest.”

Human version: “Unpredictable shift schedules made it difficult for nurses to arrange childcare and get adequate rest.”

The practical consequences already explain why the schedules mattered. The revision removes the rhetorical lead-in and keeps those consequences. If organisational inconvenience is a separate finding that matters to your argument, explain it separately rather than using it only to introduce the stronger point.

Example 2

“Not only … but also …”

AI version: “The analysis not only examined the association between delayed customer payments and cash holdings but also investigated their relationship with short-term borrowing.”

Human version: “The analysis examined how delayed customer payments were associated with firms’ cash holdings and short-term borrowing.”

Both outcomes remain. Neither needs a special announcement. Notice that “associated with” stays: shortening the sentence should not turn an association into a causal claim.

Example 3

“Not just a problem … a deeper problem …”

AI version: “For the tenants interviewed, housing insecurity was not just a problem of rising rents; it was also a deeper concern about whether their leases would be renewed.”

Human version: “The tenants interviewed were concerned about rising rents and uncertain lease renewal.”

The revision names both concerns without ranking one as “deeper”. That ranking would need support from the interviews. A sentence can acknowledge more than one dimension without presenting each as a revelation.

Example 4

Keep a contrast when it prevents confusion

AI version: “It is important to recognise that the survey was not a measurement of completed purchases, but rather an assessment of what respondents intended to buy.”

Human version: “The survey measured purchase intentions, not completed purchases.”

Here, the contrast earns its place. The unnecessary part is the instruction to recognise its importance. Keep the distinction and state it directly.

2. Replace inflated wording with the actual point

Do not stop at replacing “pivotal” with “important”. Ask what the sentence needs to communicate. Often, the useful information is already present but buried beneath the introduction or commentary.

Example 5

A broad opening before a specific question

AI version: “In today’s rapidly evolving democratic landscape, access to local news plays a pivotal role, prompting this study to examine its association with attendance at municipal meetings.”

Human version: “This study examines whether access to local news is associated with attendance at municipal meetings.”

The research question was in the second half of the sentence. Bringing it forward removes an unsupported claim about a “pivotal role”. You can explain the study’s importance elsewhere using relevant evidence.

In fact, for me, i always avoid any AI sentence that contains something like "In today's .....", "In contemporary .....", etc.

Example 6

“Delves into the intricate interplay”

AI version: “The study delves into the intricate interplay between rainfall variability, crop yields and household income among smallholder farmers.”

Human version: “The study examines the relationships between rainfall variability, crop yields and household income among smallholder farmers.”

You see the difference? Likeeee, you see? The revision retains the variables and population. “Intricate” announces complexity without explaining it. If the analysis tests a particular interaction or pathway, name it accurately; do not add one merely to make the sentence more specific.

Example 7

A result followed by unsupported commentary

AI version: “The newspapers devoted more coverage to crime than to housing, underscoring the profound influence of editorial priorities on public attitudes.”

Human version: “The newspapers devoted more coverage to crime than to housing.”

The coverage comparison does not, by itself, demonstrate an effect on public attitudes. Removing the final clause protects the finding. If audience evidence supports a further interpretation, present that evidence next. “Underscoring” and “highlighting” cannot supply it.

Example 8

Several adjectives where a description would help

AI version: “The programme adopted a comprehensive, inclusive and transformative approach by providing evening appointments and consultations in three languages.”

Human version: “The programme provided evening appointments and consultations in three languages.”

You alone "comprehensive, inclusive and transformative". Just look at the second sentence unneccessary use of several adjectives in a sentence. That should tell you that the provision is concrete; the praise is not. Whether the changes made the service more inclusive is a question for evaluation. A list of three is not inherently weak, but each item should contribute information.

3. Use direct language without losing academic precision

Formal writing does not require an elaborate substitute for every verb. Purdue OWL’s guidance on concision recommends choosing words for their effectiveness, rather than simply chasing the shortest sentence.

Example 9

Let the verb carry the action

AI version: “The researchers conducted an assessment of household debt and undertook a comparison of repayment difficulties across income groups.”

Human version: “The researchers assessed household debt and compared repayment difficulties across income groups.”

“assessed” replaces “conducted an assessment”;

“compared” replaces “undertook a comparison”.

Simple and short. Isn't it?

The revision remains academic and preserves the meaning.

Example 10

Remove words that make a method sound grander

AI version: “The study leveraged satellite imagery to facilitate the identification of changes in vegetation cover following the drought.”

Human version: “The study used satellite imagery to identify changes in vegetation cover after the drought.”

The method has not become less sophisticated because the verb is simpler. Keep technical details that explain how the imagery was analysed; remove wording that merely makes “used” take longer to say.

Example 11

Do not vary a term until it means something else

AI version: “The survey found that employees reporting greater supervisor support had lower intentions to resign. This reduction in staff departures demonstrates the benefits of supportive management.”

Human version: “Employees reporting greater supervisor support also reported lower intentions to resign.”

Intentions to resign are not recorded departures. The second sentence changes the outcome and adds a stronger interpretation. Repetition of a precise term is preferable to a synonym that changes the claim.

4. Make the connection between ideas clear

Transitions should tell the reader how ideas relate. Adding “furthermore” or “moreover” to every second sentence will not create a logical argument.

Example 12

Use a contrast when the outcomes differ

AI version: “Participants’ knowledge of screening improved after the workshop. Furthermore, screening attendance remained unchanged.”

Human version: “Participants’ knowledge of screening improved after the workshop, but screening attendance remained unchanged.”

“But” draws attention to the difference between knowing about screening and attending it. The sentence now connects the findings rather than simply placing them beside one another.

Example 13

Replace “this” when its reference is unclear

AI version: “Firms increased their prices while customers reduced order sizes. This placed additional pressure on revenue.”

Human version: “Firms increased their prices while customers reduced order sizes. The smaller orders placed additional pressure on revenue.”

This edit is appropriate if smaller orders are what the writer means. The original “this” could refer to either change or their combination. Resolve the intended meaning from the evidence before selecting a clearer noun phrase.

5. Sound measured, not vague or overconfident

A natural academic voice can make a firm statement when the evidence supports it. It can also acknowledge uncertainty without surrounding every claim with several layers of hesitation.

Example 14

Remove stacked qualifications

AI version: “The findings may potentially suggest that irregular income could possibly contribute to delayed rent payments.”

Human version: “The findings suggest that irregular income may contribute to delayed rent payments.”

The uncertainty remains. “Potentially” and “possibly” do not add a useful distinction here. Choose the level of caution that matches the design and findings; do not remove every qualifier to make the prose sound more confident.

Example 15

Restore the study’s scope instead of writing “experts agree”

AI version: “Experts agree that remote work increases productivity and retention across industries.”

Human version: “In a randomised trial involving 1,612 Trip.com employees, the option to work from home two days a week reduced resignations by about one-third without adversely affecting performance grades (Bloom et al., 2024).”

This pair uses a real published study. The revision corrects the claim, rather than merely changing its tone. It identifies the arrangement, participants and outcomes. The study does not establish increased productivity across industries.

Example 16

End with a specific implication

AI version: “By addressing the transport costs reported by patients, policymakers can unlock the full potential of inclusive healthcare and pave the way for a healthier future.”

Human version: “The reported transport costs warrant evaluating travel support as a way to improve access to appointments.”

The revision proposes something that could be evaluated. It does not promise a broad improvement in health from addressing one reported barrier. A conclusion should follow from the findings, not finish with a larger claim simply because the paragraph is ending.

Now revise a complete paragraph

Look at how the same editing decisions work together. The following paragraph contains useful observations, but its commentary keeps moving beyond them.

AI version:

The articles predominantly focused on flood damage and rescue operations, highlighting the pivotal role of the press in shaping disaster awareness. Coverage was not merely a record of events; it was a powerful reflection of society’s priorities. Although drainage maintenance received limited attention, the findings offer profound insights into the complex relationship between journalism and disaster preparedness.

Human version:

The articles focused mainly on flood damage and rescue operations, with limited attention to drainage maintenance. This pattern suggests that the coverage gave greater attention to the immediate effects of flooding than to one issue relevant to prevention. It does not establish whether the coverage influenced readers’ preparedness.

The revision retains the observations, offers a bounded interpretation and marks the limit of that interpretation. No new figures or findings have been added. The writing remains academic because the reasoning is precise, not because the vocabulary is elaborate.

Before you keep the revised sentence

Check three things:

  • Meaning: Does it still express the intended point? A better-sounding sentence is not an improvement if it changes the variable, comparison or result.

  • Evidence: Can you support every detail you added? Do not invent a sample size, mechanism or finding to make a vague sentence more convincing.

  • Voice: Is it clear enough to explain aloud while retaining the technical terms the reader needs?

Keep citations when you rewrite source-based ideas. Purdue’s paraphrasing guidance recommends checking your version against the original for accuracy. For assessed work, follow your institution’s rules on AI assistance and disclosure.

You do not need to remove every em dash, avoid every formal word or add deliberate mistakes as some people say. A useful revision lets the reader see the point, the evidence and the limits of the claim without working through unnecessary language.

Sources and further reading