Latest
What’s New at The Writing King: Week of October 25, 2026Challenger Remembrance Day: The Engineer Who Wouldn’t SignJoel Salomon: The Truth About MoneyReddit Is Putting Up a Login Wall. Wikipedia Won’t Be Far Behind.Victoria Chemko: The Body Is the First TechnologySir Patrick Stewart: A TributeA Yale Economist Says We Won’t Be Missed. He Forgot the Bread Line.Walter Koenig: A TributeAI Has Paid Off Outside Tech. Apollo Is Reading the Wrong Scoreboard.I Don’t Post Bad ARC Reviews. I Send the Author a Note.The Little Red Book of Stuff That Works!Your Kids Are Your Own FaultGrow a PairYou’re Broke Because You Want to BeIt’s Called Work for a Reason!No Time for TactShut Up, Stop Whining, and Get a LifeWilliam Bessette: AI Enablement and Child Welfare TechnologyFree Book Planning ToolsWhat’s New at The Writing King: Week of October 18, 2026Ghostwriting by the Numbers: Timelines, Word Counts and the First CallPromising Young Woman (2020) ReviewBillions for AI, Pennies for the Plumbing: AI Companies Should Pay to Keep PHP AlivePHP2Shell: AI Found a 22-Year-Old Crack Under Your Website in Two DaysPetrov Day: The Officer Who Didn’t Believe the ComputerKindle Unlimited Is Now Kindle+. AI Audiobooks Just Joined the BuffetChina Is Using Bots to Fan the Data Center Backlash. The Backlash Is Still Real.The Society of Authors Signed an Ethical AI Charter, Then Ran From It in Eight DaysMo Gawdat Says the AI Dystopia Starts in 2027. Read the List, Skip the DatesWhen to Quit Writing a Book: I’ve Abandoned Dozens, and I’d Do It AgainGetty Images Filed for Bankruptcy. Can You Prove You Licensed Your Book’s Images?Fluff Words: Cut Them From Your Prose, Keep Them in Your DialogueWhere Can Writers Learn Storytelling From Movies? Richard Lowe Publishes 1,226 Film and TV Reviews With Writing Craft NotesWhere Are the Independent Bookstores and Public Libraries Worth Visiting in Tampa Bay? Author Richard Lowe Profiles 44 of ThemWhere Can You Hear Founders and Executives Tell Their Own Stories? Richard Lowe’s Leaders and Their Stories Publishes Every Unscripted Interview With a Full TranscriptWhat Should You Know Before Hiring a Ghostwriter? The Writing King Publishes 57 New Answers, Including What to Do When It Goes WrongAuthor Richard Lowe Publishes Eight Volumes of Enemies of You, a Researched Series on the Forces Working Against Ordinary AmericansThe Jackal (1997) ReviewThe Day of the Jackal (2024) ReviewYour First Novel Is an Apprentice Piece: What Beta Readers and Editors Can’t FixWhen the Cloud Gets Bombed: What the AWS Data Center Strikes Teach About BackupsHuman-Written Book Labels Are Gatekeeping With a FeeThe Enshittification of Microsoft Office: Why I Switched to a Free CloneGlobal Encryption Day: The Padlock Every Writer Depends OnWriting Your Worst Moments in a Memoir: Show the Evidence, Skip the VerdictHow to Register a Copyright for Your Book (and What Doesn’t Count)Your AI Chats Aren’t Private: Deleted ChatGPT Logs in CourtThe Board Seat Scam: A 419 Letter in a Business SuitI Joined the Science Fiction Book Club 30 TimesCitations in a Memoir: Endnotes, Footnotes and Fair Use
The Writing King Your Ethical Ghostwriter. Your Story, Done Right.

Why Cursing at ChatGPT Actually Works (And What This Means for Your Business Writing)

TL;DR: A client told me they get better results from ChatGPT when they curse at it. My first reaction was laughter, then curiosity, and then I set out to figure out why it’s true. Frustrated, blunt, specific prompts often outperform polite ones, and the reason says something useful about how to write clear instructions for any audience.

“Fucking damnit can’t you follow simple instructions. You moved the text the wrong way. How many times do we need to go through this? Keep it the same. Move the text right. Give it a 1/8 inch margin on the right make the font smaller if you need to. Can you do that?”

Sound familiar? If you’ve ever found yourself getting frustrated with AI and letting a few choice words slip into your prompts, you’re not alone.

And it works better than being polite. I discovered this when a client mentioned they get better results from ChatGPT when they curse at it. My first reaction was laughter. My second was curiosity. My third was a full investigation into why this counterintuitive approach makes perfect sense.

I’m not recommending that you swear at your software. AI is a tool, and a tool does what you tell it to do. People who type timid, padded requests and then complain that the machine is useless are blaming the hammer for their aim, and the complaint is weak when the fix is sitting in their own sentences.

Why Do Polite AI Prompts Fail?

Why over-polite AI prompts produce vanilla outputMost people approach AI the way they would talk to a grandmother at Sunday dinner, asking whether it would possibly mind helping, and then wonder why the answer reads like it was written by a committee of corporate lawyers. The mechanism is straightforward. The model mirrors a tentative tone and returns tentative answers. Polite prompts also tend to lack specificity, so the output is vanilla by construction. The hedging signals that corporate speak is wanted instead of human communication. The person who types a blunt, specific instruction gets what they need in half the time, not because rudeness is a technique but because directness carries specificity with it.Why polite prompts produce vanillaThe model mirrors your tone. Hedge, and it hedges back.1The hedged request"If you wouldn’t mind, could you possibly"Tentative in every clause2The model mirrors the toneTentative in, tentative out3Specificity was never suppliedPoliteness crowded out the detailthat would have aimed the answer4Committee-voice outputGeneric, watered down, safeExactly what the prompt asked forDirectness works because it carries specificity with it, not because rudeness is a technique.
Why over-polite AI prompts produce vanilla outputMost people approach AI the way they would talk to a grandmother at Sunday dinner, asking whether it would possibly mind helping, and then wonder why the answer reads like it was written by a committee of corporate lawyers. The mechanism is straightforward. The model mirrors a tentative tone and returns tentative answers. Polite prompts also tend to lack specificity, so the output is vanilla by construction. The hedging signals that corporate speak is wanted instead of human communication. The person who types a blunt, specific instruction gets what they need in half the time, not because rudeness is a technique but because directness carries specificity with it.Why polite prompts producevanillaThe model mirrors your tone. Hedge, and it hedgesback.1The hedged request"If you wouldn’t mind, could you possibly"Tentative in every clause2The model mirrors the toneTentative in, tentative out3Specificity was never suppliedPoliteness crowded out the detailthat would have aimed the answer4Committee-voice outputGeneric, watered down, safeExactly what the prompt asked forDirectness works because it carries specificity withit, not because rudeness is a technique.
Most people approach AI like they’re talking to their grandmother at Sunday dinner. “Please, if you wouldn’t mind, could you possibly help me create a marketing strategy? I’d be ever so grateful.”

Then they wonder why they get generic, watered-down responses that sound like a committee of corporate lawyers wrote them. For more, see AI in customer service.

Meanwhile, the guy typing “Just give me a fucking killer headline that doesn’t suck” gets exactly what he needs in half the time. This is what happens when you’re too polite with AI.

The AI mirrors your tentative tone and gives you wishy-washy answers. Polite prompts often lack specificity, so you get vanilla output. The AI thinks you want corporate speak instead of human communication.

And politeness signals that you want safe, boring, committee-approved responses. For more, see Why Business Leaders Cannot Communicate and What to Do About It.

The Science Behind Strategic Swearing

When you curse at ChatGPT, several things happen in the prompt processing.

Emotional intensity signals importance. Strong language tells the AI this request matters more than your average “please write me a blog post” prompt. It’s like using urgent subject lines in emails. The system pays more attention.

I’ve seen it with Claude. When I tell it I’m super pissed, it does a little bit better job. It’s just how these tools work. Business coach Joe Rockey pushed back when I told him. He’s not a fan, because people think letting rage out cleanses them, and the psychology says it builds that anger up inside you.

Informal language bypasses corporate filters. Casual, direct language signals that you want human-sounding responses, not PR department-approved corporate speak. The AI adjusts its tone to match yours.

Specificity through frustration. When you’re frustrated enough to swear, you’re usually more specific about what you want. “Make me a damn good headline” is clearer than “Please help me with a headline if possible.”

Directness cuts through the noise. Swearing forces you to be direct about your needs instead of burying your actual request under layers of unnecessary politeness.

Technical precision under pressure. Notice how the frustrated prompt at the top includes exact specifications: “1/8 inch margin,” “move the text right,” “make the font smaller if you need to.” Frustration often produces the most detailed, practical instructions.

The Business Writing Connection

This AI discovery reveals something about all business communication: honesty and directness almost always outperform politeness and formality. “Urgent: Fix this now” gets opened faster than “Request for assistance when convenient.” Sales copy that says “Stop wasting money on bad marketing” converts better than “Perhaps consider alternative marketing approaches.” A meeting agenda that reads “Three decisions we must make today or we’re in trouble” is more effective than “Items for potential discussion.” The pattern holds everywhere. Direct language produces direct results. Hedged language produces hedged results.

I think corporate writing has done real damage here. It trained a generation of professionals to hedge every sentence so nobody could ever pin them down, and readers can tell when a writer is covering themselves. They stop trusting that writer within a paragraph or two, and no amount of polish wins them back.

The Professional Cursing Framework

Swearing forces you to be direct about your needs instead of burying your actual request under layers of unnecessary politeness.

Before you start dropping F-bombs in your next board presentation, know what strategic directness is: cutting the verbal padding so what you say lands. You can do that without a single curse word.

Lead with urgency and skip the apology. Instead of “I hope this email finds you well, and I apologize for bothering you,” try “Quick question that could save us both time.” Your reader’s brain immediately focuses on the value proposition.

Use active, direct language. “We need to fix this problem” hits harder than “It might be beneficial to explore potential solutions to this challenge.” Clear language creates clear thinking. This is part of my AI & Writing Hub, where I collect everything on the topic.

Embrace emotional honesty. “I’m frustrated by these delays” communicates more effectively than “There appear to be some timeline considerations we should address.” Honest emotion creates real connection.

Cut the corporate cushioning. “This strategy isn’t working” delivers more impact than “We may want to consider alternative approaches to our current strategic direction.” Direct feedback enables direct action.

Hedged phrasing versus direct phrasing
Situation Hedged Direct
Email subject Request for assistance when convenient Urgent: Fix this now
Email opening I hope this email finds you well, and I apologize for bothering you Quick question that could save us both time
Sales copy Perhaps consider alternative marketing approaches Stop wasting money on bad marketing
Meeting agenda Items for potential discussion Three decisions we must make today or we’re in trouble
Naming a problem It might be beneficial to explore potential solutions to this challenge We need to fix this problem
Delays There appear to be some timeline considerations we should address I’m frustrated by these delays

Before and after: Cut the cushioning and state the verdict
Before

We may want to consider alternative approaches to our current strategic direction.

After

This strategy isn’t working.

Four words replace thirteen of corporate cushioning, and the reader knows what to act on.

Why This Matters for Authority Building

The most influential business leaders communicate with honest directness that cuts through noise and creates clarity.

They don’t hedge their expertise or apologize for their insights. When you write with the same honesty that makes cursing at ChatGPT effective, your expertise becomes memorable. Decision-makers pay attention because busy executives appreciate clear, unambiguous guidance. Your personality shows through because a real voice builds stronger relationships than corporate speak. And complex ideas become accessible because simple, direct language makes sophisticated concepts understandable.

This matters most when an executive sits down to write a book. A book full of hedged, lawyered sentences reads like a press release that ran long. Readers put it down halfway, and the author never gets the call, the speaking invitation or the client the book was supposed to bring in, after all the work that went into it.

The Content Creation Problem

This discovery about AI responsiveness reveals why so much business content fails to engage audiences.

Most companies write like they’re afraid of offending anyone. That means they connect with no one. See how I write clear AI prompts. The businesses that break through the noise see what cursing at ChatGPT teaches us: honest communication with real emotion and clear direction creates better results than polite, generic padding. Your readers don’t want corporate politeness. They want human insight delivered with conviction and clarity.

It makes me a little crazy to watch a company pay people to produce content designed to offend no one. That content gets read by no one either, and the company has spent its time and budget to stay invisible.

What Is the Perfect AI Prompt Formula?

In real-world testing, the frustrated AI prompts that work well share a structure. Open with emotional intensity. That immediately signals priority. Challenge competence directly, because “Can’t you follow simple instructions” forces attention. Reference previous failures, because “How many times do we need to go through this” shows ongoing frustration and context. Give precise technical specifications: exact measurements, specific requirements, clear constraints.

And demand confirmation, because “Can you do that?” forces acknowledgment. The structure works whether you include the profanity or not. The main ingredients are emotional intensity, specificity, and a clear demand for results.

My take

Swear if you like. The profanity isn’t what works. Blunt prompts beat polite ones because they carry urgency, exact specs and a clear demand, and polite ones bury all three. The same goes for anything you write for people. Cut the corporate cushioning. Say “this isn’t working” when it isn’t. A book of hedged sentences reads like a press release that ran long, and nobody finishes it.

Does being blunt with AI improve the output?

Prompting AI or writing for humans, the same principle applies: say what you mean and say it clearly. Smart people bury what they know under apologetic padding, and the machine is just the latest audience to punish them for it. If you know something worth saying, you owe your readers the plain version.

The next time you’re struggling to get the response you want, from AI, from clients, from your team, try dropping the excessive politeness and embracing strategic directness. Include specific details, challenge assumptions, and don’t be afraid to show real frustration when things aren’t working. Just maybe keep the actual swearing for your AI conversations. Unless you’re damn sure your audience can handle it.

From the author
The Birth of the Augmented Human by Richard Lowe

The Birth of the Augmented Human
Better results come from engaging the tool well. The Birth of the Augmented Human covers what goes right when you use AI properly, so it amplifies your thinking instead of replacing it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does swearing at ChatGPT really improve results?
The swearing itself isn’t magic; the specificity that comes with frustration is. When people get annoyed, they stop being vague and start giving blunt, concrete, do-this-not-that instructions, and that’s what the model needs. The curse words are incidental. The clarity they accidentally produce is what works.
What should you put in an AI prompt?
Be direct and specific without the profanity. State exactly what you want, what to keep, what to change, and in what form. The lesson from the cursing phenomenon is that precise, unhedged instruction beats polite vagueness every time, with a person or a machine.
What does prompt tone teach you about business writing?
That clarity beats politeness when the goal is being understood. Hedged, courteous language often obscures the actual request. The same bluntness that gets results from an AI, say what you mean, clearly, also makes emails, briefs, and instructions to humans far more effective.

Be too polite with AI and it mirrors your tentative tone, giving you wishy-washy answers.
Share on X

About the Author
Richard Lowe, professional ghostwriter

Richard Lowe is a professional ghostwriter and author with 113+ books authored and 54+ ghostwritten. Before writing full time he spent 33 years in enterprise technology, including 20 years as Director of Computer Operations and Technical Services at Trader Joe's. He writes nonfiction, fiction and memoir, and works with executives and experts on books that build authority.

More about Richard Lowe →

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are solely those of Richard Lowe and are based on personal experience and research. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional legal, financial, accounting, or business advice. Always consult with qualified professionals before making important business or legal decisions. Richard Lowe is not a lawyer, accountant, or licensed professional advisor, and this content does not establish any professional relationship.

0 comments

No comments yet. Yours can be the first.

Was this useful?

Leave a comment