Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

LLM-based applications are helping people write, and LLM-generated text is making its way into social media, journalism, and our classrooms. However, the differences between LLM-generated and human written text remain unclear. To explore this, we hired professional writers to edit paragraphs in several creative domains. We first found these writers agree on undesirable idiosyncrasies in LLM generated text, formalizing it into a seven-category taxonomy (e.g. clich\'es, unnecessary exposition). Second, we curated the LAMP corpus: 1,057 LLM-generated paragraphs edited by professional writers according to our taxonomy. Analysis of LAMP reveals that none of the LLMs used in our study (GPT4o, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, Llama-3.1-70b) outperform each other in terms of writing quality, revealing common limitations across model families. Third, building on existing work in automatic editing we evaluated methods to improve LLM-generated text. A large-scale preference annotation confirms that although experts largely prefer text edited by other experts, automatic editing methods show promise in improving alignment between LLM-generated and human-written text.