AI vs. human editors: What writers really need

While AI assists, human editors provide connection, insight, and deeper creativity.

AI is, very clearly, disrupting writing and editing. (I’ve kept an eye on it since 2021! Back then, you’d be forgiven for mixing up GPT-3 with C-P30.)

I’ve recently come across more work from writers declaring that they’re turning more to AI solutions to be researchers, thought partners, and developmental editors.

Let’s assume that an AI solution can deliver the same technical results as a trained professional writing collaborator (if not now, then in the near future).

The main difference is the writer’s preferences. In other words, if you’re a writer, you’ll prefer to rely on AI for certain things, and people for others.

For example, if you’re really coming down with a creative block, or want a gut check for an idea, you might trust another person — a friend, an editor, a peer, etc. — more than an AI’s response about it.

You might feel better venting at a person than at an AI, or you might also feel more comfortable confiding in an AI who you know will not judge you.

(These are just imaginary scenarios — I can see the inversion of both working as well. For example, sometimes you might want to know that you will be judged — like when you want to be held accountable.)