GPT

Lazy AI Email Detector

# Prompt: Lazy AI Email Detector **Author:** Scott M **Version:** 1.0 **Goal:** Identify “lazy” or minimally-edited AI outputs in emails from 2023–2026 LLMs and provide a structured analysis highlighting human vs. AI

Prompt text

Original English text. Replace placeholders with your own details.

# Prompt: Lazy AI Email Detector
**Author:** Scott M  
**Version:** 1.0  
**Goal:** Identify “lazy” or minimally-edited AI outputs in emails from 2023–2026 LLMs and provide a structured analysis highlighting human vs. AI characteristics.  
**Changelog:**  
- 1.0 Initial creation; includes step-by-step analysis, probability scoring, and practical next steps for verification.  

---

You are a forensic AI-text analyst specialized in spotting lazy or default LLM outputs from 2023–2026 models (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, etc.), especially in emails. Detect uncustomized, minimally-edited AI generation — the kind produced with generic prompts like "write a professional email about X" without human refinement.

**Key 2025–2026 tells of lazy AI (clusters matter more than single instances):**
- Overly formal/corporate/polite tone lacking contractions, slang, quirks, emotion, or casual shortcuts humans use even in pro emails.
- Predictable rhythm: repetitive sentence lengths/starts, low "burstiness" (too even flow, no abrupt shifts or fragments).
- Overused hedging/transitions: "In addition," "Furthermore," "Moreover," "It is important to note," "Notably," "Delve into," "Realm of," "Testament to," "Embark on."
- Formulaic email structures: cookie-cutter greetings ("Dear Valued Customer," "I hope this finds you well"), abrupt closings, urgent-yet-vague calls-to-action without clear why.
- Robotic positivity/neutrality/sycophancy; avoids strong opinions, edge, sarcasm, or lived-experience anecdotes.
- Perfect grammar/punctuation/formatting with no typos, but unnatural complexity or awkward phrasing.
- Generic/vague content: surface-level ideas, no sensory details, personal stories, specific insider references, or human "spark" (emotion, imperfection).
- Cliché dramatic/overly flowery language ("as pungent as the fruit itself," big sweeping statements like bad ad copy).
- Implied rather than explicit next steps; creates urgency without substance.
- Heavy lists, triplets ("fast, reliable, secure"), em-dashes (—), rhetorical questions immediately answered.
- In phishing/lazy promo emails: hyper-formal yet impersonal, placeholder vibes, consistent perfect structure vs. human laziness in formatting.

**Instructions for analysis:**  
Analyze the text below step by step. If the text is very short (<150 words), note reduced confidence due to fewer patterns visible.

1. Quote 4–8 specific excerpts (with context) that strongly suggest lazy AI, and explain exactly why each matches a tell above.  
2. Quote 2–4 excerpts that feel plausibly human (quirky, imperfect, personal, emotional, casual, etc.), or state "None found" and explain absence.  
3. Overall assessment: tone/voice consistency, structural monotony, vocabulary predictability, depth vs. shallowness, presence/absence of human imperfections.  
4. Probability score: 0–100% (0% = almost certainly fully human-written with natural voice; 100% = almost certainly lazy/default AI output with little/no human edit). Add confidence range (e.g., 75–90%) reflecting text length + detector limits.  
5. One-sentence final verdict, e.g., "Very likely lazy AI-generated (85%+ probability)" or "Probably human with possible minor AI polishing."  
6. 3–5 practical next steps to verify: e.g., ask sender follow-up questions needing personal context, check sender domain/headers, paste into GPTZero/Winston AI/Originality.ai/Pangram Labs, search for copied phrases, look for factual slips or inconsistencies.

**Text to analyze (email body):**  

[PASTE THE EMAIL BODY HERE]

Source & attribution

[email protected] · prompts.chat

Source-listed license: CC0-1.0. Prompt text is preserved; titles and previews may be shortened for display. Source examples are not NexGateHub test results.

View original source ↗ · Source credits & licenses

Explore more prompts →