Generative AI is a writing tool, not a replacement for humans. People use it on a spectrum, with 100% AI output in the final draft at one end and 0% at the other. For some, generative AI is just a sounding board. For others, it’s a text‑output machine steered by effective prompting.
These varied approaches have an impact on how writing comes across to readers. A 0% AI-output approach is most likely to retain the writer’s voice. In other words, it will sound like an individual wrote it. With 100% AI output, it’s more probable that the writing will feel “clean” and “standardised.”
For organisations that need to communicate with their stakeholders, the 0% and 100% approaches have different situation‑dependent advantages.
Quality‑assured AI‑generated text can be clear, well structured, and easy to read.
Writing with a human voice often sounds more authentically real. This is particularly important when the text is supposed to have been written by an individual known to the stakeholders.
The two approaches also have disadvantages.
Unedited AI‑generated output isn’t always a good cultural fit for a particular group of readers. Anything could go wrong; for example, it could sound too businesslike, too energetic, or simply not appropriate for the community.
Purely human writing can be difficult to read when the writer’s thought habits get in the way. Common problems include being too tentative, over‑explaining, and changing ideas part way through.
Human editors can help in both situations. We often adjust the voice of AI‑generated writing so that it’s a better fit for readers. We also make sensitive structural edits to human writing so that its original voice is retained but ideas are communicated more clearly.
Of course, the use of generative AI in writing is a spectrum. People move up and down it, employing generative AI more or less heavily depending on their needs and what they want to say.
Tide & Time Editorial 