In a recent LinkedIn post, Justin Oberman discusses the increasing prevalence and impact of AI detection tools on content, arguing that while these tools are imperfect, human judgment remains the ultimate arbiter of quality writing.
Oberman shares his experience of reviewing newsletters from three clients, all of which were flagged as 100% AI-generated. He notes that with a brief intervention using his “Copy Hunter method,” he was able to reduce the AI score to zero. However, he cautions that the accuracy and implementation of these detectors are not the core issue.
“And whether we like it or not (believe the score or not), it would be foolish to believe they are not going to have an effect on readers (and even us)”
As Oberman points out, the proliferation of AI detection browser extensions means that readers are increasingly encountering content with an AI-generated score. He suggests that this perceived score, regardless of its scientific validity, will inevitably influence reader perception and engagement. Oberman uses a personal analogy to illustrate this point:
“I know that for me, at 20% AI, I am more forgiving. At 60%, something begins to curdle. But at 100%, I don’t even try to engage (which makes sense since you didn’t try either)”
Beyond AI Detectors: The Human Element in Writing Quality
Despite the focus on AI detection scores, Oberman argues that beating these automated tools is only the first hurdle. He contends that the true challenge lies in passing the more nuanced, human form of AI detection, particularly among discerning audiences like high-net-worth individuals.
According to Oberman, these individuals often rely on an intuitive sense to identify writing that feels inauthentic or machine-generated, a process he describes as lacking scientific rigor but being highly effective. This leads to a paradoxical situation where individuals attempting to avoid sounding like AI by following common advice inadvertently end up sounding more alike.
The Real Problem: Bad Writing, Amplified by AI
Oberman posits that the fundamental issue with much AI-generated content isn’t its artificial origin but its poor quality. He explains that AI simply makes it easier to produce bad writing at scale. The core principle he emphasizes is that exceptional writing consistently outperforms mediocre writing, which in turn surpasses poor writing.
“The way people write has changed. But the way people respond to writing hasn’t.”
To help writers navigate this landscape, Oberman, alongside Tasleem Ahmad Fateh, is hosting a live, free session focused on the truth about AI and writing. They plan to share five key “Copy Hunts” designed to improve writing quality. Oberman invites those who have experienced clients deeming their work “a bit AI,” received flat results from AI writing tools, or are struggling with low engagement on their content to join this session.
He encourages participants to bring their most problematic paragraphs for potential live critique, framing the event as an opportunity to “Copy Hunt” and refine their craft.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Justin Oberman on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on July 26, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →