Will artificial intelligence (AI) make people like me extinct?

By “people like me,” I mean editors. Those of us who make our living editing the work of authors and other writers. Copy, line, and developmental editors. I provide all three types of editing through my company, GdS Editorial Services.

Many of my professional peers seem to think it might. Or that it is already making us an endangered species.

Among members of professional organizations like the Editorial Freelancers Association (I’m a longtime member), the fear and anxiety are real. Veteran and newbie editors complain that jobs are drying up and that potential clients prefer to use artificial intelligence tools rather than pay for editing. I’ve seen editors and proofreaders on various social media platforms, including Facebook editors’ groups, express the same anxieties.

Are their concerns justified, or are they overreacting?

Before we can answer that, it’s necessary to explain what artificial intelligence is and isn’t.

PerfectIt, Microsoft Word macros, and Grammarly are all forms of artificial intelligence. They are useful to editors because they help us find errors and make a piece of writing precise and stylistically consistent. Google Docs integrates AI-based features to improve user experience. These AI programs have been around a lot longer than ChatGPT.

But when most people think of AI writing tools, it’s something like ChatGPT and not those older programs. Digital tools like ChatGPT are computer programs designed to mimic human writing. But no AI program can do what a human editor can. In fact, the limitations of AI mean that it is unlikely to ever replace editors (or proofreaders).

For one thing, editing is a specialized skill that requires training and experience. Plus, a lot of practice, judgment, and technical expertise. Mastery of grammar and syntax are essential. But editing is more than proficiency in the mechanics of writing.

Editors ensure a piece of writing is cohesive, makes sense, and presents its arguments or themes logically. They also look for things like bias and tendentiousness, possible liability issues, and permissions. You can query AI about these concerns and issues, but it isn’t yet capable of addressing all of them.

A major limitation of AI is that it cannot preserve a writer’s unique voice; that’s something only an editor can do. AI can try to mimic a writer’s or brand’s style but cannot make editorial decisions to maintain it. When editors work on a client’s book, article, essay, novel, short story, or blog post, we ensure that whatever changes we make enhance the work and read as if the writer wrote it. Sometimes, a writer’s voice will be inconsistent, awkward, or unclear. An editor familiar with a writer’s style will know when something feels “off.” No AI program can do that.

Editing entails a relationship between editors and writers. Writers expect their work to be treated with care and respect. That means there needs to be trust between both parties. AI tools cannot make that kind of personal connection; they cannot offer empathy, respect, support, or encouragement. Those qualities are crucial to any editor-writer relationship, especially when the material is fiction, poetry, personal essays, or it addresses potentially sensitive cultural, social, or political themes.

Two other important functions are beyond the capacity of AI: making editorial decisions and performing all necessary editorial tasks.

When writers write, they have a readership or readerships in mind. AI cannot tell if wording or topics might be inappropriate for the intended audience. But an editor can catch and fix such issues.

As I mentioned, writing programs like Microsoft and Grammarly are useful in correcting grammatical errors. But they are not infallible in correcting and refining writing. Editors don’t only work on the mechanics of writing; they shape the overall quality of a story or article. AI cannot give the same attention to authorial voice and readability as a human editor. Grammarly, for example, cannot pick up on nuances of style, especially in fiction, poetry, or other forms of creative writing. If you write dialogue in colloquial speech or non-standard English, it will suggest changes or “corrections” that are not consistent with how you want your dialogue to read.

Moreover, AI makes mistakes. In using Grammarly, I’ve often found that the algorithm’s suggested corrections introduce errors and change the sense of what I’m writing. Grammarly and other AI programs are only as good as the data they’re built on, and that information might not be current or relevant to the writing being edited. And AI programs cannot fact-check themselves. Only a living, breathing editor or proofreader can check for factual inaccuracies.

Although AI can be useful for minor editing tasks and drafting text, it’s not suited for higher-level editing that requires critical thinking, like line and developmental editing.

AI technology has spread rapidly and will continue to do so, whether we editors and proofreaders like it or not. There’s a strong economic incentive for publishers to use it: it’s much less expensive than hiring human editors and proofreaders. Faster and cheaper —those are advantages of AI that capitalism prizes.

So, to get back to the question I posed at the beginning of this post, will AI make us editors an extinct, or endangered species?

Robin D.G. Kelley, a distinguished historian and author, praised the Boston Review, a publication he writes for, because he knows his work “will always be edited with rigor and care—a miracle in an age when editing has all but disappeared.”

“To be edited with rigor and care” shouldn’t be a “miracle.”  It should be standard practice in publishing.

Kelley’s comment about editing having nearly disappeared is sobering but perhaps overstated. AI, at least in its current incarnations, cannot perform the miracle of rigorous and careful editing.

That’s why people like me are unlikely to become extinct anytime soon.

 

 

Job creep is a phenomenon in which employers continually require increasing amounts of work relative to the normal requirements of their operations (Wikipedia)

Copy editors catch grammar and spelling errors, standardize style, and improve the clarity and flow of a piece of writing. We work on the mechanics of writing –you could say we are word mechanics who try to make writing “run” as well as possible. When I copy edit, whether a book manuscript, an article, online content, or educational material, I strive to enhance a writer’s work, helping them to say what they want to say clearly and effectively. I don’t, however, rewrite their work unless they’ve asked for a high level of editing — line or substantive.

Sounds pretty straightforward, right? But these days, I increasingly see job postings for copy editors that include requirements beyond what copy editors actually do. These postings add so many functions that they can only be called examples of job creep (also known as “scope creep”). I could cite many instances I’ve seen, but I’ll just focus on three that illustrate job creep.

“We are actively seeking a Freelance Copy Editor to collaborate with our dynamic and growing team,” begins one job posting. A key responsibility of the position is to “edit materials for adherence to company or client style, grammar, and spelling policies.” OK, that’s a copy editor function. But the freelance copy editor also must “collaborate with cross-functional teams to refine creative content, ensuring quality, consistency, and accuracy”; “conduct thorough fact-checking and verification processes to uphold the accuracy of content”; and “ensure compliance with legal, regulatory, and industry-specific requirements in content editing.” Need I say that these three additional requirements are beyond the scope of copy editing tasks? It’s classic job creep — combine what should be one position’s responsibilities with those of several other positions. And — surprise, surprise–the employer expects it all to be done on the cheap, the pay range being $30 to $50 per hour.

Here’s another example of a job creep posting. The employer requires the copy editor to be responsible for “editing stories and fact checking.”  Copy editors do edit stories, but fact checking is another function and a specialized skill. Copy editors can flag something that seems factually questionable, but they’re not researchers or responsible for factual accuracy.

The same posting requires “designing and building pages” and “managing the homepage.” Neither of these is a copy editor function. Requiring them is job creep.

My third and final example struck me as a particularly egregious example of job creep.

A public library wants to hire a part-time copy editor. The position has eight responsibilities, including “collaborates with graphic designers, production teams, programs and services, and other departments on marketing projects”; “delivering proofs to requestors for approval prior to printing or promotion, and follows up for feedback or final approval”; “processes jobs and materials requests, conducts thorough research and interviews and stays current on trends within the editorial sphere”; and “collaborates with designers and provides feedback on design elements.”

This employer doesn’t want a copy editor; it wants a combination editor-production manager-proofreader-designer-marketer-researcher…and for the generous remuneration of $18 to $21 per hour!

Now, I love public libraries and think they should be generously supported and protected from attempts to censor the books on their shelves. But this so-called copy editing position and the lousy pay are exploitative and insulting to professional copy editors. Not only does the posting cram in many non-copy editing functions, but the employer expects them to be done for not much more than the minimum wage in New York.

With job creep becoming much more common these days (and not only in the editing business), what’s a copy editor to do? We can, of course, refuse to apply for these positions. Maybe even let the employer know why the posting is objectionable. But although we have professional associations, we don’t have a union to fight these abuses. The Freelancers Union (I’m a member) has lots of useful services and resources for freelancers of all sorts, but it’s an advocacy organization that doesn’t enforce contracts, deal with contract violations, or set industry standards. The National Writers Union (I’m a member of that one, too) works to “promote and protect the rights, interests, and economic advancement of members; to organize writers to improve professional working conditions through collective bargaining action; and to provide professional services to members.” It doesn’t, however, seem to monitor industry practices regarding editors and the job creep phenomenon.

So, it’s up to us, the copy editors (and line and substantive editors), to keep track of these job creep jobs and bring them to the attention of our professional associations, like NAIWE, the Editorial Freelancers Association, the American Copy Editors Society, etc.  Make it an issue, and maybe, just maybe, employers will take note and stop this exploitative practice.

 

Collaborating effectively with writers is essential to good editing. That may seem obvious, but it nonetheless needs to be said. When writers and editor are on the same page (pun intended), the editing process works better for both parties.

Collaboration requires clear and regular communication between editor and writer, a solid understanding of the writer’s vision and what they want to say, and constructive feedback and suggestions.  Good communication can prevent misunderstandings and ensure the author’s vision for the manuscript is realized.

When I edit, I establish a collaborative working relationship with my clients. As part of building a rapport, I take the time to get to know them and their vision for their work. I provide regular updates and feedback throughout the editing process.

In working with an author, I:

• Establish a clear communication plan at the beginning of the editing process.
• Use clear and specific language in my communications.
• Respond promptly to questions and concerns.
• Provide regular updates on the status of the manuscript.

In editing a client’s work, I keep in mind the following:

• The intended audience
• The author’s voice and tone
• The big picture: the premise and purpose of the work

To get more specific, in editing a book manuscript, I review the chapters to ensure that they:

• Support the book’s big picture. I will edit to ensure that no chapter seems extraneous or goes off-topic.
• Have a logical flow and progression, and re-ordering them if they don’t.
• Are balanced in length.
• Appropriately and effectively use information and sources, whether anecdotes, interviews and quotes, statistics, or research.

I  follow these principles even if the work is not a full-length book manuscript, for example, an essay, an article, or a research report.

Make sense to you? Then get in touch to discuss your work and how we can collaborate in editing it. You can contact me here or at my GdS Editorial Services website. If you already have a publisher, I will ensure your work is edited to meet your publisher’s expectations and requirements. Although no editor can promise that a manuscript will be published as a book, if you work with me, you will have a polished, professional manuscript that meets industry standards.

Do editors need to be certified?

That’s a question that keeps popping up in online editors and writers groups. As you can imagine, there’s no consensus on this matter. Some argue that obtaining certification from a respected school or professional organization is an invaluable asset for an editor. Certification demonstrates that you’ve successfully completed a course of study and can provide clients with a higher level of editing proficiency than someone who hasn’t been certified. Others, including many who have worked as an editor (copy, line, developmental), argue that although certification is beneficial and may give you an edge over other editors, it’s not necessary to be a competent and successful editor. And for many, the high cost of many editorial certification programs is a barrier.

As someone who works as a freelance editor, I can draw on my experience regarding this issue.

But first, we need to specify what we mean by certificates and certification. They actually are two different types of credentials. According to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a certificate requires you to complete a training or education program and achieve its learning outcomes.  Colleges, universities, government agencies, employers, and trade organizations offer certificates in editing. However, you don’t have to demonstrate ongoing competence or renew the certificate. For certification, a professional standard-setting body will assess your competence according to that profession’s specific criteria. A certification program grants the certification when you demonstrate that you meet the competence criteria. Unlike someone who attains a certificate, the certification recipient must renew the certification through continued assessment and competence demonstration.

It’s much more time consuming and expensive to receive certification than obtain a certificate in editing. I have one of the latter, from Poynter News Organization/American Copy Editors Society (ACES). I successfully completed the editing course and met its learning outcomes. It’s nice to have this credit on my resume and promotional materials. But I’ve found that my previous work experience has been a much greater asset to my editing career. Before I retired from full-time employment to become a freelancer, I had decades of experience in journalism, corporate communications, and, public health. This background gave me wider subject matter expertise than if I’d gone straight from a university or professional certification program into editing.

For example, one of my editing clients is a public health organization focused on disease and injury prevention. The organization produces social marketing campaigns and various educational curricula. Having worked in public health, I had a familiarity with this material, the concepts and messaging techniques, that proved invaluable in working with the organization. I didn’t need certification to be successful at this work, and frankly, not for any of my other editing projects, whether they be nonfiction books, academic articles and essays, or in-house communications.

Certification can be good for an editor’s career; I don’t want to discourage anyone from pursuing it. But  I’ve found it unnecessary. For me, a combination of profession-specific skills — a thorough grounding in the different kinds of editing and a solid grasp of grammar, syntax, and the mechanics of language — have been more important. Those things, and life experience that no course or program can provide.

 

 

INEQUALITY, CLASS AND ECONOMICS

Editing this book, which has just been published,  was one of my favorite projects last year. Written by economist Eric Schutz, Inequality, Class and Economics is an accessible and compelling history of rising economic inequality in the United States and its connection to class and power.

Here’s a sample:

“It is sometimes argued that great and increasing economic disparities such as are now commonplace in the United States need not necessarily be of much concern in an economically mobile society like ours. The sting of inequality is supposedly lessened by the possibility of “moving up the ladder.” Yet mobility is merely another part of the myth of American classlessness. Other nations show significantly greater mobility up the income ladder, both between generations and within one generation, than the United States….Statistical studies today indicate that the ease of movement from one income level to another in the United States has actually declined greatly since the Second World War. Not only is the length of the ladder increasing as the degree of wealth and income inequality rises; it is also getting harder to climb the ladder as upward mobility is decreasing.”

Writing and editing, that’s what I do. As do so many other members of the NAIWE. But what’s the relationship between the two activities? Is one more enjoyable or rewarding than the other? I began my professional life as a reporter and features writer for a Connecticut weekly. I then worked as the arts editor of another Connecticut paper, the New Haven Advocate. Then, in the late 80s, I decided to get a degree in social work (community organizing and social planning) because of the AIDS crisis. I felt I had to make a contribution to fighting this terrible epidemic that was killing so many and exposing not only the bigotry against people who had HIV but also the inadequacies and inequities of our country’s health care system. Although I continued to contribute articles to such publications as The Nation, Newsday, Film Comment, the SoHo Weekly News, and The Advocate, I mainly worked as a program planner and writer/editor for government and non-governmental agencies. And somehow, while working full-time in public health, I managed to write my first book, An Offer We Can’t Refuse: The Mafia in the Mind of America (Farrar, Straus, Giroux). (I was able to write the book because I had a supportive boss who allowed me to rearrange my schedule.)

After more than twenty-five years working in public health, I left full-time employment to concentrate on writing and editing. My experience in public health, focused mostly on HIV/AIDS, taught me a lot not only about that field but also about editing. Having to craft compelling messaging that could keep people from becoming ill and dying was a challenge much more daunting than writing a feature article or an arts review. And editing writing by physicians and other medical professionals so that it was accessible to their intended audiences was even more challenging.  But it also was great preparation for what I would do after leaving full-time employment: editing books.

At first, the transition was awkward, and it took me a while to adjust and build a client base. But before long, I was working with both publishers, academic and trade, and directly with authors, on nonfiction books. I’ve edited histories of the Middle East, the memoir of a heavy metal rockstar, the biography of a founder of forensic science, an expose’ of electronic surveillance and disinformation, a first-hand account of Cuba’s economic crisis after the fall of the Soviet Union, and many other titles. I found I loved working on other writers’ work, helping them to say what they wanted to say as effectively as possible. I also found that editing their work improved my own writing. I read my own work much more closely and critically. Editing definitely has made me a better writer. I’ve managed to juggle writing and editing projects pretty well; I am now finishing my second book, about the Sicilian/Italian history of New Orleans. My work life has been like this: I work on editing and my own writing on alternate days for the most part; sometimes, though, one project, usually an editing assignment, will take priority. It’s an arrangement that works well for me, and one I enjoy and find creatively fulfilling.

2021, though not as epically terrible as 2020, is not a year I will look back on fondly. It was for me a year of great personal loss, as well as yet another year of dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic. Vaccines and boosters enabled a brief period of hope that things might return to some semblance of pre-pandemic normalcy. Then came omicron. Throughout it all, I’ve managed to write and edit, working on some interesting and challenging projects that were creatively fulfilling (and paid the bills). I’ve edited several books and made substantial progress on one I’ve been writing–a book about New Orleans that will be unlike any existing book about that complicated, fun-loving, troubled, and indispensable city. I’m looking forward to completing the book soon and taking on new writing and editing projects in 2022. Got a writing project you need an editor for? Don’t hesitate to get in touch through this website.

As the summer of 2021 winds down, writers, editors, and publishers return from vacations (assuming they were able to take them), ready and eager (one hopes!) to get back to work. I’m no exception. I cut back my writing and editing for a couple of months and now am well rested and ready to take on new challenges.

Do you have a book manuscript you need edited, whether basic copy editing or a more detailed review ? An idea you want to develop for a book proposal? Academic articles or essays or online content? Are you a progressive NGO doing good work and need an editor/writer to get the word out about it?

Get in touch with me here and let me know what you need. I’m here to answer your questions, give you advice, and hopefully establish a working editorial relationship that results in a writing project you’re happy with and proud of.

I edit nonfiction and have wide ranging subject matter expertise. Culture, pop culture, politics, social science, health and sexuality, LGBT all are areas in which I specialize. Take a look at this website to see more about the services I offer and my experience.