First, I’m not a technophobe! I love finding an excuse to buy new electronic gadgets or play with a new app. But it’s possible to enjoy using technology while being wary of its growing and not always positive impact on the world. I am often asked what I think about using AI for editing, so here are some initial thoughts.
Yes, I do use AI
I’ve used Grammarly on and off for years as an editing tool but I never rely on it and frequently over-rule its suggestions. It is useful for spotting errors I might have missed (typos, missed or duplicated words, etc.). It is also handy for showing where I could try to shorten or split a sentence, but I almost always ignore its suggestion for how to split or shorten. Too often it suggests a grammatically correct rewrite that changes the meaning or feeling of the sentence. I’m left rolling my eyes at the screen, “Go away! That’s not what I wanted to say!”
Not surprisingly, I never trust Grammarly to do my work for me. I have experimented a few times with letting it do whatever it wanted with my writing. I accepted all its rewrite suggestions and hated the result. It jumbled my message and took away my voice. It created a dry piece of text that probably followed all the rules (whose rules are they?), but it wasn’t me talking and it didn’t accurately convey what I wanted to say. It chose word options I wouldn’t use and removed any attempts to craft sentences in a creative way.
Grammarly: “That sentence construction doesn’t fully comply with my programmed rules.”
Me: “Bite me!”
The writer’s voice
Whether I am writing a social media post, a formal report, or a blog, I have a distinct voice, as does every writer. I have a sense of pride in my writing and in my unique way of converting thought processes into text.
Of course, in a work environment, I have to present my voice in different ways to suit the audience. In this blog I can be more chatty. In a social media post I’ll be more direct, maybe even a bit shouty. In a formal report, I’m going to be succinct, calm and professional. But all three still convey my voice, my unique way of communicating, and at least a small taste of my personality.
Give two researchers the same raw data and ask them both to write about it and you’ll receive two very different reports. Even if they analyse the data in the same way and draw the same conclusions, and even if they have a report template to follow, they will still convey their thoughts in unique ways.
If we were then to implement all the editing suggestions that Grammarly or other editing AI offered for these two reports, would the writers’ uniquely different voices remain? Based on my experience of the editing suggestions made by AI, it would probably smooth some rough edges, which is helpful. Then it would keep going until it rubbed away too many elements that made the writing unique to the writer.
What difference does a human editor make?
Empathy with the writer
I hear you ask, “If using AI to edit a document removes too much of the writer’s voice, don’t you just do the same when you’re editing someone’s work?”
Well, I could, but a good editor seeks a balance: making enough changes to ensure the document is the best it can be for the reader while not making so many changes that the writer no longer feels it’s their document. It’s not easy, and I’m sure I don’t always get it right.
I guess a key difference between me and the AI editor is that I use my human empathy for the writer to guide me in making decisions about that balance. The computer has no empathy for the writer, it just cold-heartedly applies rules.
For example, sometimes my brief is to create a vastly simplified or shortened version, which means heavily revising the text. Sometimes the easiest option would be to totally rewrite everything, erasing the original writer’s voice to achieve perfect clarity and brevity. I rarely do that unless the client asks me to. Instead, l look for ‘signatures’ in the text – words and phrases that I think the writer specifically chose to convey a message or that I feel represent their unique style or voice. If possible, I find a way to keep these. I want the writer to read the edit and think, “Yep, these are still my words” despite the substantial revisions I’ve made.
The AI editor has no compulsion to consider the writer’s feelings.
Confidentiality
Yeah, I know, we can ‘train’ AI to write or edit in different ways, and eventually no doubt it will develop a sort of empathy for the writer. For now, we can ask it to make a text more or less formal. We can share a pile of existing documents and ask AI to write or edit our new piece in a similar style. It might do a passable job of imitating that style.
However, when a human editor works on creating the output you want, they usually sign a contract with strict confidentiality clauses. This ensures your document (and any other samples the editor uses for guidance) is safe from unauthorised disclosure and distribution. When you share your document(s) with an open AI platform to get editing help, you usually have no privacy guarantee or control over who might get access to your content. The ethics of a human editor are far more reliable than an AI editor!
Understanding the audience
When I’m editing, I’ll consider the audience and purpose of the document. I use my experience in a specific sector to help me decide how to focus and present the text so that it is as accessible and engaging as possible for that audience. This is why most editors work within specific areas. I will edit on quite a wide range of development, human rights and education issues. I know enough to understand what I’m editing. I can pick up on nuances and figure out the meaning if the writer has not explained something clearly. I would not edit a medical textbook though.
Of course, we can tell editing AI who our intended audience is so it can try to write or edit to suit. But for those of us working globally, I doubt AI yet has the capacity to fully understand all our audiences, from all parts of the world and from all groups in society.
AI is programmed and ‘taught’ by a relatively narrow group of people. There’s already plenty of research on the problem of gender, race, geographical and socio-economic bias in AI. Given the anti-diversity, equality, and inclusion stance now being ordered by President Trump’s regime, the risk of bias within AI, produced by fawning tech companies, is likely to increase. If you want an editor who really understands how to craft your document so that it is engaging and accessible for overworked teachers or anxious parents of children with disabilities, your best option is still to use a human editor who knows the subject and the audience!
The future
Options
Office 365 recently did a huge update which seemed to focus on strengthening Copilot. After the update, I opened a blank document in Word to be greeted with grey text at the top of the page: “Select the icon or press Alt + i to draft with Copilot.” I swore at the screen! Go away. What makes you think I need your help to write.
I was then curious about my reaction. I use Grammarly already, so why was I so annoyed that Copilot’s writing tool appeared by default in my Word document? Because it was imposed on me without asking if I wanted it? Because it automatically assumed I needed help to write? Because the grey message looked messy on what should have been a pristine new white page? Whatever it was, I quickly asked Copilot a question, “How do I switch off Copilot in Word” and the AI told me how to banish itself. How satisfying!
I think it was the lack of choice that annoyed me the most because it further normalised the idea that we are all supposed to become dependent on AI. Increasingly, I know I will be seen as abnormal for choosing to edit and write the ‘old-fashioned’ way. The fact that I absolutely love writing and editing is likely to become irrelevant. I feel bombarded with passive-aggressive messages from humans and computers, reminding me that I risk ‘being left behind’ unless I submit to AI and stop insisting on using my own brain for all writing and editing tasks.
As someone whose whole life revolves around a love of the written word, I hate the idea that we could be raising future generations who will not experience that passion and who may not even develop the basic skills to know whether or not AI has written a good piece for them.
I get that many writers just write because they have to for work. It’s not a passion, they don’t enjoy it, and AI can be a huge help in speeding up an otherwise painful task. But surely there is room for both in the workplace – the unassisted writer who writes because they love the act of writing, and the AI-assisted writer who just needs to get the job done so they can have more time to do the things they enjoy?
Keep doing what you love
I totally understand how artists feel when they watch the world generating horrendous, error-filled AI images instead of commissioning a human artist or photographer. As passionate creators they must feel so devalued, replaced by a machine that can’t even draw the correct number of fingers on a human hand!
Writing and editing are my passion. I will continue to do them my way, the ‘old-fashioned’ way. When it comes to using my talent, I will proudly wear the labels ‘fossil’ and ‘dinosaur’! I will be saddened by, but not ashamed of, becoming a rare breed at risk of extinction.
If you are interested in working with an old-fashioned but highly skilled human editor, send me an email, write me a letter, or attach a note to the next carrier pigeon flying to the north-west of England!