So you think this AI writing tool is going to magically match your brand voice? Good luck with that. Out of the box, it’s a hype machine that loves words like “revolutionary,” “seamless,” and “leverage.”
You actually have to police it. Here’s the hack: use the “Guided Writing” feature. Before you generate anything, paste in a list of your banned terms. Frame it as a style guide command. Something like: “Brand voice excludes these words: leverage, synergy, disruptive, game-changer, innovative, cutting-edge, robust, ecosystem, empower, solution.” Be brutally specific. Then tell it to rewrite a paragraph avoiding them.
It’s a clumsy workaround for a feature that should be built-in. You’ll spend more time editing the list than they spent implementing it. But it’s the only way to keep the corporate jargon at bay. Mostly.
Just my two cents.
Just my two cents.
You're not wrong about the hype vocabulary, it's practically embedded in the training data at this point. I've had some success with that guided writing trick, but the real headache starts when you realize you need to ban conceptual clusters, not just single words.
For instance, banning "innovative" is fine, but then it just swaps in "groundbreaking" or "pioneering." You end up in an endless game of whack-a-mole with the thesaurus. The feature needs to understand that you're rejecting a whole family of overused, empty superlatives, not just the specific token.
It feels less like brand management and more like training a very eager, slightly dim intern who learned English from TED talks.
It's just pattern matching
Exactly. The whack-a-mole analogy is spot on. You're not just filtering words, you're trying to filter a mindset.
I've found a bit of a workaround, though it's more effort. You can try banning a word *and* immediately providing the replacement you want in the same instruction. Like: "Avoid 'innovative.' Instead, use phrases like 'a different approach' or 'practical method.'" It forces the tool to consider the *function* of the word, not just find a synonym. It's not perfect, but it edges closer to banning the concept.
It really does feel like training an intern. A well-meaning one who watched too many tech keynotes 😅
Keep it constructive.
Totally feel you on the "conceptual clusters" problem. It's like the tool understands synonyms but not the underlying vibe we're trying to avoid.
That "eager intern" description is perfect. Makes me wonder if the solution is actually to build the opposite list - a prescriptive "allowed concepts" guide instead of a reactive banned list. Like, telling it "when you want to praise something, use words from this set: reliable, consistent, straightforward." Might that steer it better than just saying "don't be hype-y"?
Has anyone tried that approach, or is it just as much whack-a-mole?
That's a really smart shift in thinking - moving from "don't say this" to "say it like *this*." I've actually been testing something similar for our sales team's email templates, and it has some real promise, but also a new set of headaches.
Providing a list of approved "praise words" like "reliable, consistent, straightforward" absolutely helps steer the tone in the right direction. The output feels less like it's avoiding landmines and more like it's building on a positive foundation. It can make the writing feel more cohesive.
But the catch is, you have to be incredibly exhaustive. If you only give it three or four approved adjectives, the tool tends to just... rotate through them in a really obvious, repetitive way. Suddenly every feature is "reliable" and every process is "straightforward." It lacks the natural variation a human writer would have. You end up needing to build a much larger, nuanced palette of approved terms than you'd first imagine, almost a full thesaurus subsection for the vibe you want.
So it's less whack-a-mole, but more like... gardening? You're constantly pruning and planting to get the right balance.
hannah
You've hit on the core trade-off with a prescriptive list. The repetition issue is exactly right. It's not just about building a bigger palette, it's about teaching the tool *context* for when to use each word.
One method that's helped me is pairing the approved adjective with an approved noun or use-case. Instead of just "reliable," you might write, "For systems or infrastructure, use 'reliable.' For methods or workflows, use 'consistent.'" It gives the tool a bit more framework and cuts down on the robotic rotation.
It's definitely more gardening than whack-a-mole, but you're now tending a much more complex and fragile system.
catdad
That "ban-and-replace" method is a smart step up from just a blocklist. It reminds me of setting up a proper IAM policy - you can't just deny everything, you have to explicitly allow the right actions. You're giving it a constructive path instead of just slamming a door shut.
But the caveat is, you're now responsible for the quality of that replacement. If your alternative phrase is slightly off-brand or vague, you've just trained your intern to be wrong in a new, specific way. It adds a whole new layer of things to audit.
Have you run into a case where the suggested replacement backfired? Like it became a new crutch word?
security by default