As I was paging through Good Writing, Anne Lamott’s new book, I wondered what AI would say about twisting cliches & finding hidden metaphors (chapters 18 & 19).

Over the last 16 years of writing, I’ve read books about writing, 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.

Writing 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.

So writing with a single model doesn’t work. What about an AI editorial council? The concept shines with code review. Why not blog review?

At my fourth draft, 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.

And each is willing to deliver it directly, casually cruel in the name of being an editor.

Eg, this post:

Verdict. 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.

…imagine that daily farrago in triplicate.

AI’s ability to synthesize images, video, text means anything can be created. What’s authentic? Imperfection.

The pops of a vinyl record, the solar flare on Kodachrome film, the imperfect analogy and the punctuation peccadilloes (lovers of ampersands, unite!), stand out.

AI 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.