The 5-second answer: it's not Markdown, it's how you use it
## Heading and **bold** are ordinary Markdown. When the page renders properly, readers see a heading and bold text, and the # and ** disappear.
※that's so true※, on the other hand, isn't standard Markdown. If you do nothing, it just shows up as "※that's so true※" on the page. (The ※ mark is a Japanese footnote symbol, a bit like an asterisk.)
And in 2026, people in Japan started deliberately imitating that oddly tidy, AI-sounding style, calling it "Chappy-style" ("Chappy" is a nickname Japanese users have for ChatGPT). It became a real buzzword: in a first-half-2026 trend survey of people in their 10s and 20s, it ranked 3rd among "words that were popular."
So the question isn't "does using Markdown make you sound like AI?" It's this: pile on bold text, bullet lists, answer-first openings, emoji, over-the-top empathy and symbol-based comebacks all at once, and suddenly you're wearing a "ChatGPT costume."
Markdown: "I just made a heading, okay?"
"Chappy-style" is humans playfully borrowing AI's writing habits
Chappy-style is an internet joke where people deliberately reproduce the patterns that generative AI tools like ChatGPT tend to produce.
The traits people mention most often:
- It opens with "Let me give you the conclusion first."
- It starts by affirming the other person very strongly.
- It sorts everything into a bullet list of about 3 points.
- It overuses bold, like
**this part matters**. - It decorates headings and key points with emoji.
- It links everything neatly with "in short," "on the other hand," and "what matters is."
- It ends by slipping back into assistant mode: "I can do X too, if you'd like."
But using just one of these doesn't make you guilty. "Let me start with the conclusion" has been normal for ages, bullet lists are great for comparisons and steps, and bold is handy when a sentence is genuinely important.
The AI feel gets strong when all these useful tools get crammed into the same spot.
Buy eggs, milk and bread at the supermarket and you've got breakfast. But if the cashier starts putting themselves into the toaster, something's off. That's the idea.
What Markdown actually does
In GitHub Docs, a heading's level is set by 1 to 6 # characters, **...** makes bold, and *...* or _..._ makes italics. CommonMark (the formal Markdown spec) also defines "ATX headings" and emphasis / strong emphasis.
For example, if the source looks like this,
## Conclusion first
This is the **important part**.
then on the published page, "Conclusion first" becomes a heading and "important part" becomes bold. With normal Markdown processing, readers never have to read the symbols.
So if a published article shows raw ## or **, that's a rendering or conversion bug long before it's an "AI style" problem.
Markdown is the ingredients. The published page is the dish. Serving a bag of flour straight to the dining room isn't flour's fault. The kitchen just didn't do its job.
Why ※that's so true※ is a different animal
In Japanese, ※ is sometimes used to mark a note, but there's no standard Markdown rule that says wrapping text in ※text※ makes it bold.
So these two need to be kept apart.
A meaningful note
※Prices are as of 8/2026.
This does a real job as information. Still, on the web, a labeled note like "Note: prices are…" or a proper note component usually makes the meaning and the accessibility clearer.
Decoration that only creates a tone of voice
※that's so true※
※this will be on the test※
※wallet: dead※
This isn't information structure. It uses symbols to add a snarky voice. A one-off can work as internet style, but repeat it through an article and it suddenly feels like a parody of generative AI.
If you're going for a joke, let the sentence do the work instead of making symbols do the laughing.
The moment I saw the bill, my wallet went home without me.
It's the same "my wallet is hurting," but this version has personality in the writing itself.
To spot AI-sounding text, use combined triggers, not a word hunt
If you ban "conclusion," "in short" and "key point," you kill readable articles along with the robotic ones. It's like confiscating every kitchen knife in the country because one was used in a crime.
In practice, it's safer to split the features by strength.
Strong warning signs, even alone
| Pattern | Verdict | Reason |
|---|---|---|
Repeated ※that's so true※-style decorative comebacks |
Strong warning | Symbols are staging a tone of voice |
| "Great question!" or "That's a sharp instinct!" fired at the reader again and again in the article body | Strong warning | A chat AI's replies have leaked into the article |
| "I can make X too, if you'd like" | NG | Not article text, but an AI assistant talking about itself |
Raw ## or ** visible on the published page |
NG | Markdown processing was missed |
| Every heading tagged with ✅💡🚀 | Strong warning | Decoration comes before structure |
Normal alone, but AI-smelling when they stack up
- "Let me start with the conclusion"
- "There are 3 key points"
- "In short"
- "On the other hand"
- "What matters is"
- Bold used over and over
- 3-item bullet lists used over and over
- Nearly every section the same length
- A tidy little summary at the end of every section
- Excessive praise for the reader
As a rule of thumb, if 3 or more of these weak signs overlap within one H2-level section, it's practical to send the piece to a human reviewer. This is just an editorial checking rule, not an official standard. Don't call a fixed score a "Google standard."
"Easy to read" and "sounds like AI" are not the same thing
Get this wrong and you cause the opposite accident.
Putting the conclusion first. Splitting sections with headings. Putting comparisons in a table. Numbering the steps. Explaining technical terms. All of these are plain good information design.
Just because Chappy-style became a joke doesn't mean you should hide your conclusion on purpose, bloat your paragraphs and turn the reader into a treasure hunter.
If you wipe out readability while scrubbing away the AI smell, that's like blowing up the whole house with a fire extinguisher.
What to keep is clarity. What to cut is the habit of repeating the same template more than necessary.
Build the joke from observation, specifics and surprise, not symbols
Human-feeling humor isn't about writing ※lol※.
What works is specific observation, odd metaphors, unexpected landings and a point of view that's yours alone.
Weak example:
※so expensive lol※
Strong example:
I double-checked the price tag. The number hadn't changed. Only my hopes got updated.
Weak example:
This is super important.
Strong example:
Skip this part and you'll end up running through the second half holding the instruction manual upside down.
The information stays accurate, and the writing itself does the funny part. That way, when you translate it, you can swap in a different joke that works in that language.
On a published site, separate the "source" from the "look"
When producing articles, having ## and ** in the Markdown source is perfectly normal. What matters is how it gets converted on publishing.
For implementation and checks, it helps to keep these apart:
- Use correct Markdown in the source.
- In the published HTML, convert to meaningful elements such as headings and
strong. - If you need a homemade syntax like
※...※, convert it explicitly. - Move notes into UI that carries meaning, such as "Note."
- Check that no Markdown symbols or generation instructions are showing in the published text.
- Have a human review the density of bold, emoji and bullet lists too.
The right approach isn't "erase the symbols." It's to hand the meaning the symbols were carrying over to the proper UI.
Last word: before you arrest Markdown, take off the ChatGPT costume
"Chappy-style" caught on in 2026 because generative AI's writing had soaked into society so deeply that people recognized it as a "template" they could imitate.
But #, **, bullet lists and answer-first openings aren't the culprits. They're all normal writing tools.
The rule is simple.
Keep the structure. Cut the habits. Build jokes with sentences. Never show source symbols on the published page.
The moment you try to get a laugh from ※that's so true※ alone, the writer goes on break and only the symbol department stays on overtime.
That's so true. Wait, no need to wrap it in anything.
