# Peacock terms and undue emphasis > Source-anchored research for Peacock terms and undue emphasis. Run status: COMPLETED. Parent: [Vague attribution and promotional register in LLM prose](https://llms-explorer.com/tree/ai-isms-attribution-and-register/) · 2 facets · 9 facts · page: https://llms-explorer.com/tree/peacock-terms-and-undue-emphasis/ ## Measurements and reference values - The Words to watch Bob Dylan example replaces 'defining figure ... brilliant songwriter' with a Time 100 inclusion, a quoted description, and a fact (hundreds of covers by the mid-1970s): the fix is attributed, checkable evidence, not a milder adjective. (low confidence) — [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch) ## Facts and statements - Wikipedia's Words to watch defines puffery as unattributed promotional words (legendary, best, great, acclaimed, iconic, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, innovative, revolutionary) and prescribes replacing them with facts and attribution. (high confidence) — [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch) - Wikipedia's Signs of AI writing lists undue emphasis on significance: LLM text overuses 'stands/serves as', 'is a testament/reminder', 'crucial/pivotal/vital role', 'underscores importance'. (medium confidence) (verified as of 2026-09-23) — [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing) - The same guide lists promotional LLM adjectives: 'boasts a', vibrant, rich, profound, showcasing, nestled, natural beauty, groundbreaking. (low confidence) (verified as of 2026-09-23) — [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing) - Wikipedia editors attribute the pattern to LLMs regressing to the statistical mean: specific facts get replaced by generic importance claims, so text becomes both less specific and more exaggerated. (low confidence) — [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing) - Hype language (hyperbolic or subjective wording used to glamorize or exaggerate) is a recognised phenomenon in human scientific writing; an NLP paper on NIH grant applications shows annotators can reliably label candidate hype adjectives with written guidelines, but the task needs domain knowledge and temporal awareness of facts. (low confidence) — [source](https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.24638) - Promotional wording alone does not prove AI authorship: Wikipedia notes not all promotional writing is AI-generated, humans write press releases and travel guides this way, and newer models are subtler than GPT-4-era ones; the signal is consistent overuse across unrelated topics. (medium confidence) (verified as of 2026-09-23) — [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing) - Fixing only the marker words can hide deeper problems: the guide calls the phrases signs of a problem, not the problem itself, and warns that superficial swaps make detection harder without fixing the unsupported claims. (low confidence) — [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing) - Automated AI-text detectors are unreliable as a substitute for phrase lists: a multi-tool evaluation found neither accurate nor reliable results, with false positives on human text and false negatives on AI text. (medium confidence) — [source](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.15666)