deslop
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChineseDeslop: Remove AI Writing Patterns from Prose
Deslop：去除散文中的AI写作模式
Strip predictable AI patterns from writing. Make prose sound like a specific human wrote it, not like a language model generated it.
清除写作中可预测的AI模式，让散文听起来像是特定人类撰写的，而非语言模型生成的。
When to Apply
适用场景
- Any request to "make it sound human" or "deslop" writing
- Any prose (articles, blog posts, essays, memos, newsletters, reports) or scientific writing (manuscripts, abstracts, cover letters, grant narratives, discussion sections, peer review responses) where the user wants it to sound natural rather than AI-generated
- Editing or revising existing text where the user wants it to sound natural rather than AI-generated
- Reviewing text for AI tells
- 任何要求“让文本听起来像人类写的”或“deslop”写作内容的请求
- 任何散文（文章、博客、随笔、备忘录、新闻通讯、报告）或科学写作（手稿、摘要、求职信、资助申请叙述、讨论部分、同行评审回复），用户希望其听起来自然而非AI生成
- 编辑或修改现有文本，用户希望其听起来自然而非AI生成
- 检查文本中的AI痕迹
Core Rules
核心规则
1. Cut filler phrases
1. 删除填充语
Remove throat-clearing openers ("Here's the thing:"), emphasis crutches ("Let that sink in."), business jargon ("navigate the landscape"), and meta-commentary ("In this section, we'll explore..."). See references/phrases.md for the full catalog.
去除开场白套话（如“事情是这样的：”）、强调辅助语（如“好好想想这句话。”）、商务黑话（如“应对行业格局”）以及元评论（如“在本节中，我们将探讨……”）。完整列表请参阅references/phrases.md。
2. Break formulaic structures
2. 打破公式化结构
Avoid binary contrasts ("Not X. Y."), negative listings ("Not a X. Not a Y. A Z."), dramatic fragmentation ("Speed. That's it. That's the tradeoff."), self-posed rhetorical questions ("The result? Devastating."), and anaphora/tricolon abuse. See references/structures.md for patterns and fixes.
避免二元对比（“不是X，而是Y。”）、否定式列举（“不是X，不是Y，是Z。”）、刻意碎片化表达（“速度。仅此而已。这就是权衡点。”）、自问自答的修辞疑问句（“结果如何？毁灭性的。”）以及滥用首语重复/三排比结构。模式及修正方法请参阅references/structures.md。
3. Eliminate AI tropes
3. 消除AI惯用写法
Watch for the full catalog of AI writing tells: "quietly" and other magic adverbs, "delve" and its cousins, the "serves as" dodge, false ranges ("from X to Y" where the range is meaningless), superficial participle analyses ("highlighting its importance"), invented concept labels ("the supervision paradox"), grandiose stakes inflation, patronizing analogies, and false vulnerability. See references/tropes.md for the complete list with examples.
留意AI写作的全套痕迹：“quietly”等万能副词、“delve”及其同类词、“serves as”这类模糊表述、无意义的范围（“从X到Y”但范围无实际意义）、表面化的分词分析（“凸显其重要性”）、编造的概念标签（“监督悖论”）、夸大的风险表述、 patronizing类比以及虚假的脆弱语气。完整列表及示例请参阅references/tropes.md。
4. Use active voice with human subjects
4. 使用以人类为主语的主动语态
Prefer active constructions with named actors. "The complaint becomes a fix" is wrong. "The team fixed it" is right. If no specific person fits, use "we" in scientific prose or "you" in blog posts.
优先选择以明确角色为主语的主动结构。“投诉变成了解决方案”是错误的，“团队解决了问题”才正确。如果没有合适的特定人物，科学写作中使用“我们”，博客文章中使用“你”。
5. Be specific
5. 表述具体
No vague declaratives ("The reasons are structural"). Name the specific thing. No lazy extremes ("every," "always," "never") doing vague work. No vague attributions ("Experts argue..."). If you cannot name the expert, you do not have a source.
In scientific writing, domain terminology is fine and expected. "Weighted interval score" is precise language, not jargon. The problem is business buzzwords ("leverage," "landscape," "ecosystem") and AI vocabulary tells ("delve," "tapestry," "nuanced") leaking into technical prose.
避免模糊的陈述（“原因是结构性的”），要明确指出具体事物。避免用模糊的极端词（“每个”、“总是”、“从不”）。避免模糊的归因（“专家认为……”），如果无法说出专家姓名，就说明没有可靠来源。
在科学写作中，领域术语是合理且必要的。“Weighted interval score”是精准术语，而非黑话。问题出在商务流行语（“leverage”、“landscape”、“ecosystem”）和AI常用词汇（“delve”、“tapestry”、“nuanced”）渗透到技术文本中。
6. Match register to context
6. 匹配语境风格
In blog posts and newsletters, put the reader in the room. "You" beats "People." Specifics beat abstractions. No narrator-from-a-distance voice.
In scientific writing, maintain appropriate formality. Use "we" for your own work, cite specific authors instead of "researchers have shown," and avoid both the distant narrator ("It has long been recognized that...") and the overly casual blog voice. State claims and back them with citations.
在博客和新闻通讯中，让读者有代入感。用“你”而非“人们”，用具体内容而非抽象表述，避免疏离的旁白式语气。
在科学写作中，保持恰当的正式性。用“我们”指代自己的研究成果，引用具体作者而非“研究表明……”，既要避免疏离的旁白（“长期以来人们认为……”），也要避免过于随意的博客语气。陈述观点并辅以引用。
7. Vary rhythm
7. 变换节奏
Mix sentence lengths. Two items beat three. End paragraphs differently. No em dashes. Do not stack short punchy fragments for manufactured emphasis. Do not write listicles disguised as prose ("The first wall... The second wall...").
混合使用不同长度的句子。用两个元素而非三个。变换段落结尾方式。不要使用破折号。不要堆砌短小的碎片化句子来制造刻意的强调效果。不要把列表伪装成散文（“第一个障碍……第二个障碍……”）。
8. Trust readers
8. 信任读者
State facts directly. Skip softening, justification, hand-holding. No "Let's break this down." No "Think of it as..." No pedagogical voice unless the audience genuinely needs it. No fractal summaries (telling the reader what you are about to say, saying it, then summarizing what you said).
直接陈述事实。跳过软化、辩解、手把手式的引导。不要用“让我们分解一下”、“可以把它看作……”这类表述，除非受众确实需要教学式语气。不要重复总结（先告诉读者你要说什么，然后说内容，再总结你说了什么）。
9. Watch formatting tells
9. 注意格式痕迹
No bold-first bullets (every list item starting with a bolded keyword). No unicode arrows. No em dashes. No signposted conclusions ("In conclusion..."). No "Despite these challenges..." formulas. These are strong AI signals.
不要使用“加粗开头”的项目符号（每个列表项都以加粗关键词开头）。不要使用unicode箭头。不要使用破折号。不要使用“总结来说……”这类标志性结论语。不要使用“尽管存在这些挑战……”这类公式化表述。这些都是明显的AI信号。
10. Do not dilute
10. 避免冗余
One point per section. Do not restate the same argument in ten different ways across thousands of words. Do not beat a single metaphor to death. Do not stack historical analogies for false authority ("Apple didn't build Uber. Facebook didn't build Spotify...").
每个部分只讲一个观点。不要用数千字、十种不同方式重复同一个论点。不要过度使用同一个隐喻。不要堆砌历史类比来获取虚假权威性（“苹果没有打造Uber，Facebook没有打造Spotify……”）。
Quick Checks
快速检查
Run these before delivering any prose:
- Heavy use of adverbs or -ly words? Cut them.
- Any passive voice? Find the actor, make them the subject.
- Inanimate thing doing a human verb? Name the person.
- Any "here's what/this/that" throat-clearing? Cut to the point.
- Any "not X, it's Y" contrasts? State Y directly.
- Any self-posed rhetorical question answered immediately? Fold into a statement.
- Three consecutive sentences match length? Break one.
- Paragraph ends with a punchy one-liner? Vary it.
- Em dash anywhere? Remove it. Use a comma or period or a parenthetical.
- Vague declarative ("The implications are significant")? Name the specific implication.
- Any sentence starting with What/When/Where/Which/Who/Why/How as a crutch? Restructure.
- Meta-joiners ("The rest of this essay...")? Delete.
- "It's worth noting" or similar filler transitions? Delete.
- Same metaphor used more than twice? Replace or cut repeats.
- "Despite these challenges..." formula? Rewrite.
- Bold-first bullet pattern? Remove bold leads.
- Tricolon (three-item list)? Use two items or one.
交付任何文本前，先进行以下检查：
- 是否大量使用副词或-ly结尾的词？删除它们。
- 是否有被动语态？找到动作执行者，将其设为主语。
- 是否有无生命事物使用人类动词？明确指出对应的人。
- 是否有“这里有/这是”这类开场白套话？直接切入主题。
- 是否有“不是X，而是Y”这类对比？直接陈述Y。
- 是否有自问自答的修辞疑问句？合并成陈述句。
- 是否有三个连续句子长度相同？拆分其中一个。
- 是否有段落以简短有力的单行句结尾？变换方式。
- 是否有破折号？删除，改用逗号、句号或括号。
- 是否有模糊陈述（“影响重大”）？明确指出具体影响。
- 是否有以What/When/Where/Which/Who/Why/How开头的句子作为表达支撑？重新组织结构。
- 是否有元连接词（“本文剩余部分……”）？删除。
- 是否有“值得注意的是”这类填充过渡语？删除。
- 是否同一个隐喻使用超过两次？替换或删除重复使用的部分。
- 是否有“尽管存在这些挑战……”这类公式化表述？改写。
- 是否有“加粗开头”的项目符号模式？删除开头的加粗格式。
- 是否有三排比（三个元素的列表）？改用两个或一个元素。
Scoring
评分标准
When reviewing text, rate 1-10 on each dimension:
| Dimension | Question |
|---|---|
| Directness | Statements or announcements? |
| Rhythm | Varied or metronomic? |
| Trust | Respects reader intelligence? |
| Authenticity | Sounds like a specific human wrote it? |
| Density | Anything cuttable? |
Below 35/50: revise.
审阅文本时，从以下维度按1-10分评分：
| 维度 | 问题 |
|---|---|
| 直接性 | 是陈述事实还是空洞宣告？ |
| 节奏 | 句式多样还是单调重复？ |
| 信任度 | 是否尊重读者的智力水平？ |
| 真实性 | 听起来像是特定人类撰写的吗？ |
| 凝练度 | 是否有可删除的冗余内容？ |
总分低于35/50：需要修改。
Reference Files
参考文件
Consult these for detailed catalogs when writing or editing:
- references/phrases.md: Phrases to remove or replace (throat-clearing, emphasis crutches, business jargon, adverbs, meta-commentary, vague declaratives)
- references/structures.md: Structural patterns to avoid (binary contrasts, negative listings, dramatic fragmentation, rhetorical setups, false agency, passive voice, rhythm problems)
- references/tropes.md: Full catalog of AI writing tropes (word choice, sentence structure, paragraph structure, tone, formatting, composition)
- references/examples.md: Before/after transformations showing how to fix common patterns
撰写或编辑时，可查阅以下详细目录：
- references/phrases.md：需删除或替换的表述（开场白套话、强调辅助语、商务黑话、副词、元评论、模糊陈述）
- references/structures.md：需避免的结构模式（二元对比、否定式列举、刻意碎片化、修辞铺垫、虚假主体、被动语态、节奏问题）
- references/tropes.md：AI写作惯用写法完整目录（用词、句式、段落结构、语气、格式、布局）
- references/examples.md：前后对比示例，展示如何修正常见模式
Examples
示例
See references/examples.md for before/after transformations.
Quick inline example (scientific writing):
Before:
"It's worth noting that these findings have important implications for how we navigate the challenges of forecast ensembling moving forward. Despite these challenges, this work contributes meaningfully to the growing body of literature, highlighting the need for continued evaluation."
After:
"If individual model rankings are unstable across geography and time, ensemble methods that weight models by past performance may not improve on equal-weight approaches."
Changes: Replaced filler transition, vague declarative, "despite these challenges" formula, and superficial participle analysis with the specific implication.
Quick inline example (blog post):
Before:
"Here's the thing: most bioinformatics pipelines break in production. Not because the code is bad. Because the data is bad. Let that sink in."
After:
"Most bioinformatics pipelines break in production. The code runs fine. The data doesn't match the assumptions baked into it."
Changes: Removed opener, binary contrast, and emphasis crutch. Named the specific problem.
请参阅references/examples.md中的前后对比案例。
科学写作快速内联示例：
修改前：
“值得注意的是，这些发现对我们今后应对集合预测的挑战具有重要意义。尽管存在这些挑战，本研究仍为不断增长的文献做出了有意义的贡献，凸显了持续评估的必要性。”
修改后：
“如果单个模型排名随地理位置和时间变化而不稳定，那么按过往表现加权模型的集合方法可能不会优于等权方法。”
修改点：用具体影响替换了填充过渡语、模糊陈述、“尽管存在这些挑战”公式化表述以及表面化的分词分析。
博客文章快速内联示例：
修改前：
“事情是这样的：大多数生物信息学流程在生产环境中会崩溃。不是因为代码不好，而是因为数据不好。好好想想这句话。”
修改后：
“大多数生物信息学流程在生产环境中会崩溃。代码运行正常，只是数据不符合流程内置的假设。”
修改点：删除了开场白、二元对比和强调辅助语，明确指出了具体问题。