Summary: This article breaks down a common misunderstanding in content processing and automated writing: mistaking machine-readable error responses for usable content. Specifically, we’ll look at what happens when someone tries to rewrite or extract a “main story” from a non-narrative technical output like a JSON error message, why it's categorically flawed, and what this reveals about how humans and machines interpret context differently.
What Gets Mistaken for Content Isn’t Always a Story
People often assume that any digital text can be repurposed into a blog post, story, or compelling narrative. This is dead wrong. Take the case we're examining: a user fed an AI model a JSON error response, expecting it to rewrite the content as a story. The response was polite but firm—it said, “There is no story here.” That statement is fact, not an evasion. The content wasn’t written for humans. It was a machine output stating an error, “Insufficient account balance.”
Now ask yourself: What do you expect to extract and rewrite when the provided text is essentially this:
{
"error": {
"code": 402,
"message": "Your account balance is insufficient to perform this operation",
"type": "account_error"
}
}
This isn't a story. It’s not even structured like human language. There’s no protagonist. No action, no plot. Just a machine signaling that a request can’t be processed. If a human editor mistook this for an article draft, you'd take away their red pen.
Why People Confuse Code with Content
Here’s the honest truth: the more tech gets wrapped in slick interfaces and AI gets better at decoding meaning, the more people forget that structure and intent still matter. A chunk of JSON code isn’t a narrative. It’s metadata. It’s like mistaking a film production schedule for the movie.
But this confusion tells us something useful—there’s a hunger for meaning in every output. Even when the source provides none. And that craving? That’s a marketing opportunity in disguise. Why are people asking an AI to rewrite a machine error? Because they assume every output contains something worth salvaging. This suspicion—that systems are holding back explanations—should make professionals think hard. Are we providing our users with real clarity and context, or are we giving them clean-looking errors and expecting them to translate?
Error Messages Reflect System Priorities, Not Human Needs
The machine response said, “There is no story to extract and rewrite.” That wasn’t a failure, that was a correct diagnosis. The machine did what it should: it functioned logically, using clear boundaries.
In negotiations, Chris Voss says “No” is the beginning of real dialogue. Likewise, this little JSON response offers a metaphor. Machines only speak when their strict conditions are met. But people? People are messy. They look for stories where there are none. They seek understanding where automation sees transactions.
So what happens when platforms give error messages that are logically correct but emotionally sterile? Confusion, misinterpretation, sometimes mistrust. The end user received “account balance insufficient.” But what if they needed that message in everyday terms, with context? What if that failure was customer support’s failure—not the system’s?
What This Teaches Us About Writing and Communication
Here’s the brass tacks: not all text is content. Not all outputs are stories. And not all writing is worth rewriting. Sometimes, just sometimes, the right move is to hold the line, respect the logic, and say: “This has no narrative value.”
Precision matters. This isn’t about elegance—it’s about truth. Einstein said everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. Likewise, we should translate information for clarity, not fantasy. Rewriting a system error as a story isn’t clarifying—it’s inventing.
The Implications for Marketers and Communicators
So what’s the takeaway for those of us working on messaging, customer communication, or automated interfaces? It’s this: Match the mode to the message. Match the tone to the timing. And never, ever strip away meaning in the name of polish.
Is your helpdesk wrapped in technical terms because engineers drafted it—and you left it that way? Are you assuming users know what to do when a payment fails, or a login is blocked? Or have you actually mapped the user fears, reactions, and probable next steps—and written for clarity?
That bit of code above wasn't a story, but it could’ve been an opening. For an explanation. For a smoother interface. For a helpful solution path.
Smart Communication Respects Limits—and the Audience
Acknowledging that “there is no story here” is a power move. It’s setting a boundary. If you’re in marketing, tech, or customer service, you need to know when to stop fluffing. Users smell inauthenticity. They feel when something is padded or useless. Don’t fake clarity. Don’t pretend technical outputs are narratives. Instead, own up, then pivot to serve the human need behind the request. That’s persuasion. That’s respect. That’s what professionals do.
To Reflect: What are you sending to your clients or customers that they may be mistaking for meaningful content—because you didn’t label it correctly, explain it clearly, or wrap it in honest human context? What would change in your communications if everything was structured not for volume, but for understanding?
#ClearCommunication #ErrorHandling #MarketingSimplicity #UXWriting #ProfessionalMessaging #ContextMatters #IntelligentBoundaries
Featured Image courtesy of Unsplash and Algernai Hayes (7A6QfNXaRzk)