How to Spot “AI Workslop”

I’ve written before about the risks AI “workslop” poses to companies. This term refers to AI-generated content that is facially passable as work product, but deeply lacking in substance and accuracy. It can be challenging to combat workslop and often managers are the first line of defense as they are tasked with reviewing junior-level employees’ work product. A recent Fisher Phillips memo gives practical tips for managers to help spot the telltale signs of AI outputs:

• “Overly generic language that could apply to any role, department, or company
• Perfectly structured paragraphs that lack a human voice, specificity, or the natural friction that comes along with human writing
• Excessive use of em-dashes like this—often multiple per paragraph—to create the illusion of nuance
• “It’s not just X—it’s Y” construction, used repeatedly to inflate ordinary points into faux insights (like “It’s not just a change—it’s a revolution”)
• False confidence in incorrect or oversimplified statements, especially about legal, technical, or operational issues
• Repetition of the same idea (especially at the conclusion) using slightly different phrasing rather than adding new substance
• Buzzword stacking (“synergy,” “alignment,” “value creation,” “impactful outcomes”) without concrete examples
• Vague conclusions that gesture toward action without assigning ownership or next steps.”

Besides spotting workslop from a managerial perspective, there is another consideration here. In order to not have your communications confused for workslop it may be necessary to adjust your writing style. This is especially important for communications that may affect your organization’s reputation, such as those going out to clients or vendors. This is unfortunate news for em-dash fans like myself who do not want to be confused for an AI chatbot. For now, unfortunately, we’ll have to make do with interrupter commas.