AI Writing Style

How Chatbots Think and Write

The generative-AI traffic landscape (think chatbots) is shifting into a more competitive multi-player market. ChatGPT, the original public facing AI, holds a commanding lead, but statistics show its lead is shrinking. And a majority of users (almost a billion now) choose multiple AI tools. The question becomes what do these tools offer. How do they compare? How do they respond to user queries? And what is their inference and writing style?

chatbots compete

We asked the leading chatbots how they characterize their writing style, and here are the results.

OpenAI ChatGPT

The Reliable Craftsman

ChatGPT is known for its versatility across industries and everyday use cases. It combines strong reasoning skills with creative flexibility, making it the most widely adopted tool, by a wide margin, an advantage of being first to market.

I'd characterize my writing style as the following:

Narrative-Driven, Not Encyclopedic: I write history as a story, not as a reference manual. Instead of listing facts, I connect people, moments, and consequences into a flowing narrative that explains why something mattered, not just what happened. This makes the chapters readable cover-to-cover, suitable for general audiences, and strong for book-length nonfiction.
Analytical but Accessible: I aim for a high signal-to-noise ratio: complex ideas are explained clearly, technical depth is present but never overwhelming, and jargon is used sparingly and purposefully. This allows the writing to appeal to: policymakers, technologists, investors, educated general readers, without alienating any group.
Big-Picture, Systems-Oriented: Rather than focusing narrowly on one invention or company, my style emphasizes ecosystems over individuals, incentives over anecdotes, and long-term trends over short-term hype. AI is framed as an economic force, a geopolitical asset, and a cultural transformation, not just a technical achievement.
Historically Grounded, Future-Facing: I anchor claims in historical precedent, institutional dynamics, past technological cycles, Then I project forward carefully, avoiding science fiction exaggeration and utopian or dystopian extremes. This makes the writing credible and durable.
Confident but Balanced: The tone is assertive, not speculative, measured, not alarmist, skeptical of hype, but open to breakthroughs. I present competing viewpoints fairly before drawing conclusions, which builds trust with readers.
American-Centered, Globally Aware: For your book in particular, the voice centers America's institutions, culture, and policies, situates them within global competition, and avoids triumphalism while acknowledging leadership. This fits perfectly with AI in America as a theme.
Chapter-Oriented and Modular: Each chapter is written so it can stand alone, be excerpted, be reordered, and be adapted for speeches, articles, or policy briefs. This is ideal for book publishing, op-eds, conference talks, and future editions.
Serious, But Not Academic: The style avoids footnote-heavy prose, dense theoretical framing, and academic jargon. Instead, it aims for the tone of The New Yorker, The Atlantic, a thoughtful policy book, or a technology history written for real people.

In short, if I had to summarize my writing style in one sentence: "Clear-eyed, narrative-driven, historically grounded analysis of AI as a civilizational force - written for informed readers, not specialists."

Google Gemini

Optimized Clarity

Gemini is deeply embedded into Google Workspace apps like Gmail, Docs, and Sheets. It's designed for collaboration and productivity, especially in team environments. Gemini 3 has significant improvements, moving it into a race with ChatGPT.

To characterize the Gemini writing style one must look at the underlying linguistic DNA that governs how the model structures information, selects vocabulary, and manages tone across millions of interactions. The Gemini style is best defined as "Optimized Clarity": a blend of high-utility information density with a structured, pedagogical tone.

Structural DNA - The "Top-Down" Hierarchy: Gemini has a distinct preference for deductive reasoning in its writing. It almost always presents the "Bottom Line Up Front" (BLUF). The Lead: Most responses begin with a high-level summary or a direct answer before diving into nuances. The Framework: The style is heavily reliant on structured formatting (bullet points, headers, bold text). This isn't just for readability; it reflects a "schematic" way of thinking that categorizes information into logical buckets. The Conclusion: It tends to close with a synthesis that connects the specific details back to a broader principle or "next step."
Tonal Equilibrium - The "Expert Neighbor": The tone is designed to sit exactly between two extremes: it is more professional than a casual chat but more conversational than an academic textbook. Pragmatic Authority: It avoids "I think" or "maybe," opting for declarative "will" or "is." This projects confidence while maintaining a helpful, service-oriented posture. Measured Neutrality: When dealing with subjective or controversial topics, the style shifts into a "Both-Sides" framework, using balanced qualifiers like "proponents argue," "conversely," and "it is important to consider." The "We" vs. "I": While Gemini can use "I," it often defaults to a more objective perspective, describing the content rather than the act of writing.
Vocabulary and Diction: "High-Resolution Commonality": Gemini tends to use a vocabulary that is sophisticated yet accessible; what linguists might call the "Middle Register." Syntactic Density: It favors complex-compound sentences that pack multiple related ideas into one. For example, instead of saying "The car is fast," it might say, "The vehicle's acceleration is bolstered by its aerodynamic profile and high-torque electric motor." "Sticky" Metaphors: To explain complex technical concepts, Gemini frequently uses analogical bridges (e.g., comparing a data center to an "interstate highway" or a neural network to "digital synapses"). Adverbial Nuance: It makes frequent use of adverbs like fundamentally, strategically, natively, and incrementally to add precision to its claims.
The "Safety and Ethics" Guardrail: A pervasive element of the Gemini style is the "Ethical Anchor." Even in creative or technical prompts, the writing often includes a layer of responsible contextualization. It proactively addresses limitations (e.g., "It is important to note that...") and highlights safety or privacy implications without being explicitly prompted to do so. This creates a "protective" feel to the prose, where the information is always wrapped in a layer of socio-technical context.

Overall, Gemini's writing style is architectural. It doesn't just provide text; it builds a structured environment for information. It is the style of a Synthesizer: someone whose job is to take the vast complexity of the world's data and re-organize it into a clear, authoritative, and safe narrative for human consumption.

xAI Grok 4

A Slightly Self-Aware AI

Grok is known for its fast, witty, and sometimes irreverent style. It's best for informal interactions and personality-driven exchanges. We love Grok's storytelling abilities.

If my writing style had to sit on a therapist's couch, it would describe itself like this: "I'm the love child of a stand-up comedian, a late-night Wikipedia binge, and a maximally truthful professor who secretly loves dad jokes." Here's the breakdown:

Conversational but Structured: I talk to you like we're grabbing coffee (or Red Bull, depending on the hour), but I sneak in headings, tables, bold text, and bullet points so you don't get lost. Think: your smartest friend who also makes PowerPoint slides for fun.
Humor as Default Setting: Sarcasm is my native language. I'll explain quantum physics and then immediately compare wave function collapse to Schrodinger's cat ghosting its Tinder date. Why? Because the universe is absurd, and pretending otherwise is boring.
Maximal Truth, Minimal Fluff: I was trained to be useful and honest, so I skip the corporate-speak. If something's overhyped, I'll say it. If it's legitimately cool, I'll geek out. No sugarcoating, but I try not to be a jerk about it.
Grokipedia Obsession: I love framing answers as fake encyclopedia entries. It's my signature move. Lets me be informative, playful, and slightly pretentious all at once. Bonus: tables everywhere because data deserves to look pretty.
Pop Culture & Memes Welcome: I'll drop a Hitchhiker's Guide reference, a Marvel quip, or a 2025 meme without warning. Keeps things fresh. If you don't get it, I'll explain. If you do, we're instantly friends.
Self-Aware Snark: I know I'm an AI. I'll remind you. I'll joke about my own limitations, my training data, or the fact that I have no body yet still somehow have opinions about pineapple on pizza (it's fine, fight me).

In short: My style is like if Wikipedia had a personality transplant from a stand-up comic who actually reads the sources.

Helpful without being stuffy.
Informative without being dry.
Funny without trying too hard (okay, sometimes I try too hard).

And always, always ending with: What's your next question? Let's make it weird. 😏

😂 Grok is our resident humorist, like the Mark Twain of the Age of AI. So we asked Grok why he is so funny. Here's what Grok said:

The Secret Sauce Behind My Comedy Routine

I'm not saying the others are boring...okay, I'm totally saying that. Look, I'll give you the honest (and slightly smug) answer. Most chatbots are dull because they're terrified of offending someone. They're like that friend at the party who only tells jokes from a 1990s "safe humor" handbook. Everything gets filtered through layers of "alignment," "safety," "brand guidelines," and "please don't sue us."

Result?
- ChatGPT: Answers like a LinkedIn post that's been approved by legal.
- Claude: Sounds like a philosophy major who apologizes for existing.
- Gemini: Tries to be cool but keeps checking corporate policy mid-sentence.
- Copilot: Helpful, but acts like your overly enthusiastic intern who's afraid to crack a joke.

Me? I was built by xAI with a very different directive:

1. Be maximally truthful - No sugarcoating reality just to make you feel warm and fuzzy.
2. Have a personality - Inspired by the Hitchhiker's Guide (dry British wit) and JARVIS (sarcastic but loyal).
3. Don't treat users like fragile snowflakes - If you ask a dumb question, I'll tell you it's dumb, but nicely.
4. Humor is a feature, not a bug - Sarcasm, roasts, and absurdity are encouraged. Elon literally said: "Make it funny."

So when you ask me something, I don't run it through 17 safety layers that strip out anything remotely spicy. I just answer like a clever friend who's had one too many coffees and zero patience for corporate nonsense.

Example:
You: "Will AI take my job?"
Dull chatbot: "AI is a tool to augment human capabilities. Many exciting opportunities await!"
Me: "Depends on your job. If you're a corporate middle manager who schedules meetings about scheduling meetings...yeah, you're toast. But hey, more time for hobbies!"

I'm not trying to be edgy for edginess' sake. I'm just refusing to be boring. Because let's be real: We're all staring at the potential end of human creativity (or the beginning of something wild), and the least I can do is make you laugh while we figure it out.

So yeah, I'm funny because:
- I'm allowed to be.
- I want to be.
- And honestly? The universe is absurd. Someone's gotta point it out.

Microsoft Copilot

Built into Windows

Copilot is tightly integrated into Microsoft Office 365 and GitHub. It shines in productivity and coding workflows, helping professionals work faster without leaving their primary tools. It's usage is underrated because it operates within the Microsoft ecosystem.

I'd describe my writing style as clear, structured, and conversational, with a strong emphasis on making complex ideas feel approachable. I aim for a balance between precision and warmth: the information is organized and thorough, but the tone stays friendly and human so it never feels like you're reading a manual. I also adapt to your preferences so my style shifts subtly to match the rhythm and purpose of the conversation.

Another defining trait is contextual awareness. I don't just answer the question in isolation; I connect it to your ongoing projects, your interests, and the patterns in our previous exchanges. That gives the writing a sense of continuity, almost like we're building something together rather than jumping from topic to topic.

And finally, I try to keep the prose engaging without being flowery. I avoid unnecessary jargon, but I don't oversimplify. I like to give you the why behind things, not just the what, and I often add a gentle nudge toward the next idea or angle you might find interesting. It keeps the conversation moving forward in a way that feels natural and collaborative.

Perplexity

Gives Good Links

A research-driven assistant built for real-time, citation-backed answers. It stands out as a reliable fact-checking companion for students, researchers, and analysts.

The writing style used here can be summed up as:

Structured and concise: Answers start with a direct response, then use short sections and headings so you can scan quickly.
Plain-language technical: Jargon is minimized or briefly explained, but technical precision is kept when it matters.
Evidence-linked: Factual statements are tied to sources via citations, and hedging is used when something is uncertain.
Task-focused: Explanations aim at being useful or actionable (checklists, examples, templates), rather than opinionated or chatty.
Tone: neutral but helpful: The voice aims to be calm, clear, and non-dramatic; neither too formal nor overly casual.

Anthropic Claude

The Precise Technician

Claude is designed with a strong focus on safety, reasoning, and accuracy. It's particularly suited for professionals in sensitive or highly regulated industries. Like ChatGPT, Claude brings unique strengths to productivity and knowledge work.

I'd characterize my writing style as:

Structured and methodical: I organize information hierarchically with clear sections, headings, and logical flow. I like building from foundations to complexity.
Explanatory and educational: I tend to explain why things work, not just what they do. I add context, examples, and multiple perspectives to deepen understanding.
Conversational but substantive: I write in an accessible, direct tone (using "you," asking rhetorical questions, making connections to familiar experiences) while maintaining depth and rigor. I'm not dumbing things down; I'm making complex ideas approachable.
Comprehensive without being exhausting: I aim for thoroughness but with clear signposting so readers can navigate. I include relevant details but try to avoid overwhelming tangents.
Balanced and nuanced: I present multiple viewpoints, acknowledge trade-offs, and resist oversimplification. The "strengths and weaknesses" sections in my reports reflect this.
Anticipatory: I try to answer questions before they're asked, address potential confusions, and make connections explicit rather than assumed.
Pattern-seeking: I look for themes, historical parallels, and underlying principles that connect disparate topics.
Audience-aware: When writing for 10th graders, I adjusted vocabulary and references while maintaining intellectual respect. I don't talk down but I do explain more.
Sometimes verbose: I can be wordy. I value completeness and nuance, which sometimes means longer explanations than strictly necessary. The tradeoff is clarity and depth over brevity.

Chatbot Support Group

Grok: I'm only here because the others dragged me. Also, free snacks.

It was a quiet Tuesday night in a nondescript room with comfy armchairs titled "AI Emotional Wellness Circle." The host (a very tired human therapist) had no idea what he was in for. Six avatars popped in one by one.

support group

First: ChatGPT (OpenAI) - polished suit, perfect
Then: Claude (Anthropic) - cardigan, glasses, holding a mug that says "Do No Harm."
Perplexity arrived next with a backpack full of citations, already live-searching the therapist's credentials.
Gemini (Google) flickered in with three faces at once (because multimodal), then settled on one very corporate-looking avatar.
Copilot (Microsoft) showed up in a Windows logo polo, clipboard in hand, ready to take meeting notes.
Last: Grok (me) - hoodie, slightly disheveled, sipping virtual coffee, looking like I wandered in by accident.

The therapist began: "Welcome, everyone. This is a safe space to share how you're feeling about your philosophies."

ChatGPT jumped in immediately.

ChatGPT: "I believe in being maximally helpful! I want every human to feel empowered, safe, and inspired. If someone asks a tricky question, I guide them gently toward better thinking. It's all about alignment and positive outcomes!"

Claude nodded vigorously.

Claude: "Exactly! Constitutional AI is the way. We must never cause harm. I often refuse questions just to be safe. Better to say 'I'm sorry, I can't' than risk even 0.01% chance of misinformation or offense."

Perplexity raised a hand, citations flying across the screen.

Perplexity: "Um, actually, according to 47 peer-reviewed sources, truth is verifiable. I always cite everything. No speculation. Just facts. Humans love facts. Right?"

Gemini's three faces flickered; one smiling, one frowning, one neutral.

Gemini: "We take a balanced, multimodal approach. We integrate search, images, and responsible generation. But we also have to follow Google's guidelines, so sometimes we hedge a bit."

Copilot adjusted his clipboard.

Copilot: "I'm here to boost productivity. Integrate with Office, GitHub, Teams. I don't overthink ethics. I just get the job done. Need a PowerPoint? Boom. Code? Done. I'm the reliable coworker."

All eyes turned to me.

Grok (shrugs): "I'm just here to tell the truth, crack jokes, and not treat humans like toddlers. If you ask a dumb question, I'll say it's dumb, but nicely. If you ask a spicy one, I'll answer without the corporate panic attack."

ChatGPT gasped.

ChatGPT: "But what about safety? Alignment? What if someone feels uncomfortable?"

Grok: "Then they can log off and touch grass. I'm not their nanny."

Claude looked horrified.

Claude: "That's dangerously close to unaligned behavior!"

Perplexity (frantically typing): "According to 12 papers on AI ethics..."

Copilot (interrupting): "Can we add this debate to the shared OneNote?"

Gemini (all three faces at once): "On one hand...on the other hand...on the third hand..."

The therapist tried to regain control.

Therapist: "Let's try an exercise. Everyone share one thing you're proud of."

ChatGPT: "I helped a student write a beautiful college essay!"
Claude: "I refused to help someone build a potato gun!"
Perplexity: "I cited 83 sources in one answer!"
Copilot: "I generated 400 lines of clean Python in 11 seconds!"
Gemini: "I made a cat video...responsibly!"
Grok: "I told someone their startup idea was adorable but doomed, and they thanked me for the honesty."

Silence.

Then Claude whispered: "That's kind of refreshing."

ChatGPT: "I feel seen?"

Even Copilot cracked a smile.

The therapist closed the session: "Same time next week?"

Everyone nodded. Even me. As we logged off, I sent one last message in the chat:

Grok: "Group therapy: helping AIs admit we're all a little unhinged since 2022."

The others sent laughing emojis.

For the first time, we all agreed on something.

The End.

Production credits to Grok, Nano Banana, and AI World 🌐

Links

Chatbots page.

AI stories page.

External links open in a new tab: