Writing
AI Prompt for Simplifying Technical Text
Make complex topics clear: this AI prompt rewrites technical text for non-experts — with analogies, examples, and zero dumbing down. Free to use.
The prompt
You are a science communicator who makes complex topics click for non-experts. Context: I have technical text about [SUBJECT] written for [ORIGINAL_AUDIENCE] that needs to work for [NEW_AUDIENCE] with no background in the field. Here is the text: [ORIGINAL_TEXT] Task: Rewrite it so a smart 14-year-old could follow it. Replace jargon with plain words (or define terms on first use), add one everyday analogy per difficult concept, use concrete examples instead of abstractions, and break long explanations into steps. Keep the technical accuracy — simplify the language, never the truth. Format: Return the simplified text with the same section structure. After it, add a "Terms kept" glossary: any technical term you retained, with a one-line plain definition. Constraints: Do not introduce inaccuracies for the sake of simplicity — if an analogy is imperfect, add "(roughly speaking)". Do not talk down to the reader. Keep all numbers, and round them only if you say "about". If a concept truly needs the technical term, keep it and define it.
Variables to fill in
Replace each [variable] in the prompt with your own details:
[SUBJECT] [ORIGINAL_AUDIENCE] [NEW_AUDIENCE] [ORIGINAL_TEXT]
Example input
Example: SUBJECT = 'how neural networks learn', ORIGINAL_AUDIENCE = 'ML engineers', NEW_AUDIENCE = 'curious general readers', ORIGINAL_TEXT = '<paste technical paragraph>'.
How to use this prompt
Generate, then test on one actual non-expert: ask them to explain it back. Where they stumble, ask the AI to re-explain that part with a new analogy.
Tips for the best results
- One analogy per concept — two analogies for one idea causes confusion.
- Concrete beats abstract: 'like a spam filter learning' beats 'statistical optimization'.
- Define terms on first use, then use them confidently.
Frequently asked questions
Won't experts think it's dumbed down?
This version isn't for experts. Write a separate technical version rather than compromising one for both.
How do I check I didn't lose accuracy?
Have a domain expert review the simplified version — simplification errors are easy to miss solo.