Which texts AI handles well<\/h2>\n
Language models learn from patterns in language, so they are strongest with texts that have a clear form and familiar content. They are weaker where personal experience, precise facts or an original voice matter.<\/p>\n
| Type of text<\/th>\n | Where it helps<\/th>\n | What to watch<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n |
|---|---|---|
| Emails and letters<\/td>\n | polite tone, clear structure, a shorter version<\/td>\n | correct titles, dates and names<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| Summaries<\/td>\n | pulling the essentials from a long document<\/td>\n | exceptions and conditions left out<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| Web and social media posts<\/td>\n | ideas, headlines, several versions to choose from<\/td>\n | generic phrases with no substance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| Essays and academic work<\/td>\n | brainstorming, chapter outlines, language checks<\/td>\n | invented sources, institutional rules<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n |
| Applications and CVs<\/td>\n | a tidy, concise account of your experience<\/td>\n | exaggeration, sounding like every other candidate<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n For personal texts such as greetings, speeches or memories, AI can be a starting point, but readers will only feel the warmth once you add specific recollections and your own way of putting things.<\/p>\n How to write a good prompt<\/h2>\nThe quality of the answer depends heavily on the prompt. A bare request like “write a text about healthy eating” returns something generic and predictable. A precise prompt returns something you can work with.<\/p>\n Example: “Write a polite email to the parents of Year 3 pupils. Tell them the science field trip has moved to Friday. Formal tone, no more than 120 words, no flowery phrases.” It takes a few seconds longer to write and saves several rounds of corrections.<\/p>\n You can also ask AI about your own text: what is unclear, what objections a reader might raise, which paragraph could go. You can even ask it to put three questions to you about what is still missing before it starts writing. That conversation is often more useful than the first draft, because it makes you think about the content.<\/p>\n An AI draft is raw material. When you read it through, check above all:<\/p>\n Check facts against the original source. Reading aloud is a good test: if a sentence does not sound like something you would say, rephrase it.<\/p>\n Schools and universities each regulate AI differently, so read your institution’s rules and your teacher’s instructions first. One example from Slovenia: the University of Novo Mesto’s guidelines, in force since 1 October 2023, allow AI for language checks, translation support, idea generation and starting points for your own work, but the tool must always be cited. The prompt and the program’s response also go into an appendix.<\/p>\n What is forbidden above all is passing off generated text as your own, submitting unverified paragraphs in coursework, using AI in exams (unless the assessment is designed for it) and running a text through several languages to disguise similarity. The guidelines also warn against entering confidential data into public tools. Similar principles, transparency, personal responsibility and verification, appear in most institutions’ rules.<\/p>\n Since 2 August 2026, the transparency rules in Article 50 of the EU AI Act have applied. Tool providers must mark generated content in a machine-readable way. Anyone who uses AI to produce text published to inform the public on matters of public interest must, as a rule, disclose it. The obligation does not apply where the content has undergone human review or editorial control and a specific person holds editorial responsibility. In Slovenia, compliance is supervised by the communications agency AKOS, which has also published optional Slovenian labelling icons. The Slovenian government summarised the rules in a notice (in Slovenian)<\/a>.<\/p>\n None of this applies to a private email or job application, but responsibility for the content is always yours. Authorship is also an open question: copyright law generally protects works created by a human. The more of your own creative contribution a text contains, the stronger your position if a dispute ever arises.<\/p>\n Technically yes, but most schools and universities treat it as misconduct. Help with ideas, outlining and language checks is usually allowed, as long as you name the tool.<\/p>\n Not for private texts. For texts published to inform the public, the EU has required disclosure since 2 August 2026, unless a human reviewed the text and someone holds editorial responsibility for it.<\/p>\n There is no single winner. Try the same prompt in two tools and keep the better answer, then proofread it either way.<\/p>\n Detectors exist but are unreliable and err in both directions. Teachers and readers are more often tipped off by generic phrases, wrong facts and an unnatural style.<\/p>\n |
![\"Hands](\"https:\/\/mislec.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/umetna-inteligenca-pisanje-besedil-620822-1024x680.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/mislec.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/umetna-inteligenca-pisanje-besedil-10406900-1024x684.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n