Abigail vs. AI: Why You Should Choose Me
Five minutes spent reading posts on LinkedIn or the comment section of a professional Instagram page reveals an ongoing debate: in the face of AI, are editors obsolete? Tech companies and ad campaigns push up and coming writers, authors, and content creators to say “yes, editors are becoming extinct.” But I am here to tell you, this is not true. I’ve been editing since before the AI revolution, and I’ll still be here editing long after the AI high wears off. Does AI have a potential place in the world of writing? Yes. Is it going to replace me? No. Here’s a few reasons why.
AI does not legally keep your content safe.
Despite a mass media movement to promote AI as a safe and effective editing tool, there are ongoing concerns about the legal ramifications of uploading content into programs such as ChatGBT and Grok. On the contrary, my job is to ensure your content, whether in the early phases or nearly polished to perfection. My job is to protect the sanctity of your writing, because it is your voice, your ideas, your characters, your narrative that quite literally make my job the joy it is.
AI can only edit like a program, not like a reader.
It’s true, Grammarly can catch minor errors like typos, such as missing commas or a misspelled word. But, Grammarly can’t tell you about the emotional pull of your narrative. This is where a human editor can help you hone your craft for the ultimate destination: a human reader. AI can’t tell you why a particular character’s death was moving, why a particular scene description is laugh-out-loud worthy, why a breathtaking description of scenery is worth rereading. The limitations of AI apply in the opposite directions. Just as AI cannot emotionally understand the positives of your “flavor” of writing, AI cannot anticipate negative deviations. Maybe Grammarly tells you “this word is misspelled.” But can AI tell you or explain “this chapter lags and detracts from the plot,” “your writing style or narrative voice has changed from previous chapters,” “your protagonist’s choice is out of style for their character development,” or “you’re likely to loose the reader unless we change…”
But AI is cheaper!
Perhaps the best argument against the human element is an economic one. It is true that AI programs such as Grammarly are cheaper compared to the prices charged by human editors. It is cheaper, until you realize the editing parameters malfunctions and autogenerated an error throughout your entire manuscript. It is cheaper, until you read the fine print of a submission opportunity that states “content edited or generated by AI is not eligible for publication.” When this happens, and it does, the cheaper options is nullified by the overwhelming need for the human editor.
Editing is a joy, not the sum of an algorithm.
This is not an emotional ploy to win over a potential client, nor is this a desperate lie meant to bring in dollar signs. This is a genuine statement, from me. I love editing. I love reading new manuscripts, in all stages of creation. I love late night phone calls with clients, determining what kind of editing my author needs: developmental, line, copy, proofread. I love imagining the never-seen-before world of a creative manuscript, just as I love contemplating the finer arguments of a dissertation. I get excited hearing the “ding” of my inbox, and wonder “what new, imaginative, articulate mind can I collaborate with today?” Editing is more than my job. It’s something I love doing because I’m good at it and because I want to do it. Can AI really say that and mean it?