Why AI writing feels harder to read, measured in nine frontier models

AI-written text has started reading like legalese. A new arXiv paper names six features that make it so. All nine frontier models the authors tested use these features more often than human writing does.

The paper is "Why is AI-generated language so hard to understand?" by Thomas Hikaru Clark at NYU, with Matias B. Martin and Kyle Mahowald at the University of Texas at Austin. It was posted to arXiv on 21 October 2026. The authors picked features that psycholinguists have shown slow a reader down. Then they measured how often each one shows up in model output.

The six features

The authors list them. Low-frequency three-word strings. Long gaps between a verb and its object. Object relative clauses, often with the word "that" dropped. Stacked noun compounds, like "reader-patience budget". Denominal verbs, where a noun is pressed into service as a verb, like "footnote" or "bites". Inanimate subjects used with verbs that usually take an animate subject.

The paper opens with an example sentence that uses all six. The sentence has 30 words. Here it is from the paper. "Your instinct is right; the convoluted sentence you are currently reading is quietly eating its own reader-patience budget, footnote it". The authors say a reader would suspect a model wrote this.

What they measured

The team ran nine frontier and near-frontier models through three settings: chat, coding, and essay. The chat setting held 120 conversations across ten topics. The coding setting ran agentic sessions with tool use. The essay setting compared model essays against the PERSUADE 2 corpus of student essays.

All nine models used more inanimate subjects and more low-frequency three-word strings than human writing. Most also used longer dependencies, more stacked nouns, and more reduced object relative clauses in chat. The paper reports substantial variation across model families. The Olmo family changed least when paraphrased.

The paper also tested Claude Opus 5.5. It scored lower on these features than its predecessor Opus 5 on 19 of 21 comparisons. The intervals around eight of those comparisons did not overlap. The authors state the result without claiming to know why Anthropic trained the model that way.

The hypothesis they test

Modern models go through post-training for math, coding and reasoning. In those tasks, a short, dense answer wins points. The reader is not scored. The authors fine-tune a pre-trained language model with a length penalty. Then they measure its language profile.

Under the penalty, the model uses shorter words and shorter dependencies. It also uses the same hard-to-read features that the frontier models use. The effect spreads to tasks the length penalty never trained on.

Round-trip translation is a second test. The authors translate each AI-generated passage into another language and back. The meaning stays. The sentence is rewritten. The paraphrases drop the hard features sharply. So the features are not forced by the content. They come from how the model chose to say it.

The paper is a measurement, not a product. It names the gap between how humans read and how models are rewarded. For anyone publishing AI-written copy, the paper validates one cheap workaround: run each paragraph through a round-trip paraphrase before posting.

Source

arXiv 2610.29162: Why is AI-generated language so hard to understand? by Thomas Hikaru Clark, Matias B. Martin and Kyle Mahowald. Hacker News discussion at item 50223647.