Section 1.1: Reason #1 – The Quality of AI Writing is Lacking

I have genuinely attempted to integrate generative AI into my writing workflow, but I consistently find myself rewriting the output. From crafting blog posts to generating social media content, AI often misses the mark. This is because generative AI merely predicts subsequent words rather than engaging in the thoughtful process that humans apply to writing. Our thoughts are original, while AI relies on vast datasets to determine likely word choices. Consequently, I frequently receive content that is outdated, lacking factual accuracy, or nonsensical.

AI-generated writing often fails to include reliable sources, interviews, or evidence to back its claims, resulting in bland and sometimes incoherent output. It can even "hallucinate," fabricating facts due to its predictive nature. For instance, I tasked ChatGPT with writing an article titled "Will ChatGPT Replace Writers?" The introduction it produced was:

While the title was commendable, the body of the text was filled with fluff that ultimately conveyed little. Although AI is indeed making strides and transforming various sectors, its insights often lack depth. The AI veered off course by questioning why writers fear replacement, which strayed from my original request. Instinctively, I feel compelled to edit this content to inject examples, statistics, and, importantly, a human touch.

Section 1.2: Reason #2 – The Distinction Between Humans and Machines

It’s important to state the obvious: robots do not possess human qualities. The predictive aspect of generative AI tools, especially in writing, means they lack the depth, quality, and sharp editorial sense that human writers naturally possess. Robots can imitate but cannot create; their outputs reflect this limitation.

To illustrate, I prompted ChatGPT to finish a creative writing exercise: "A girl goes to dinner with her parents, but when she looks out of the window, she sees something that makes her stand up and knock over her glass of wine."

Although I didn’t provide much context, the response felt superficial and lacked depth. Creative writing is an area where human writers should feel particularly secure, as it requires nuanced storytelling and emotional resonance—elements that AI struggles to replicate.

Section 1.3: Reason #3 – Recognition of AI Writing

Not only can people identify subpar AI-generated content, but machines can too. Humans possess unique perspectives and rich life experiences to share. Interestingly, even search engines penalize sites that utilize a high volume of AI-generated blog posts, as the content tends to be disengaging and uninspired. This creates a detrimental cycle for those who rely solely on AI for content creation.

I asked ChatGPT if it thought the blog it generated in the previous section sounded like it was created by AI. Here’s what it responded:

ChatGPT acknowledged that its own work was AI-generated. Whether this is because it recognizes its own style or because it has been programmed to identify characteristics of AI writing remains unclear. After the initial sentence, it digressed, providing irrelevant filler content.

Perhaps I am a skeptic. The advancements in technology and AI are indeed fascinating. Yet, this still feels like an early prototype of what might eventually become extraordinary. Consider how rudimentary the first phones were compared to today’s advanced devices.

Ultimately, the writers who should genuinely worry about AI are those producing poor-quality content (potentially using AI themselves) or those who work under clients or bosses who lack an understanding of quality writing. This scenario, unfortunately, is a common reality. Writers should not fear losing their jobs to robots; rather, they should be concerned about losing their roles to uninformed decision-makers who believe AI can match human creativity. Demonstrating your value is crucial; it’s important to convey that the human brain excels at understanding people. Businesses that overlook this will ultimately miss out.