3 ms·

> GPT/etc aren't going to replace copy editors, they're going to allow many more people who wouldn't otherwise hire a copy editor to have better copy But won't

by cal85 4y ago

> GPT/etc aren't going to replace copy editors, they're going to allow many more people who wouldn't otherwise hire a copy editor to have better copy But won't it also allow many people who would otherwise hire a copy editor not to hire one?

danpalmer 4y ago
Somewhat, but I don't think it'll be a huge issue. - Increased accessibility of copy-editing will likely increase the market overall, and therefore increase the market for human copy-editors. - GPT/etc are good but don't have context, taste, and have proven to be quite fallible over multiple rounds of feedback (common in copywriting/illustration in particular), so offer a good starting point that needs human intervention to use. - Copy-editors aren't just a transactional prompt-in-copy-out service in human form, they hold products and brands in their head, understand customer segments and how copy applies to them, define strategy, and so on. They are proactive. Companies with these roles, already benefitting from these things, are unlikely to replace them with software (at least not effectively).
- politician 4y ago
  If you eliminate the roles of juniors and enhance the productivity of seniors, then what happens when the seniors retire and die off? The number of roles for humans hits zero.
  - danpalmer 4y ago
    To be clear, I don't see these tools as being the equivalent of junior staff, I think they fulfil a different role. When I say "expert" I don't mean senior, I mean someone with domain skills. I think these tools will be usable by people of any skill level, and the result will be commensurate with the user's skill level. You'll still be able to hire junior illustrators, they'll use the tools, and they'll produce better results than if they didn't have the tools, but not as good as a senior person with the tools.
    - politician 4y ago
      My concern is that due to the amount of code that these tools can generate, a codebase will rapidly turn into mud in the hands of unskilled people. So, either you build an extensive code review process or only hire people who were working programmers before 2021 and augment them with AI assistants. Unfortunately, the latter kills off the role in a generation while the former kills off the business in the current generation. It’s lose/lose.
tharkun__ 4y ago
Yes absolutely. And it will allow you to replace the generally crappy ones that some companies can/do afford themselves with better copy than the humans churn out today. Instead of having a bunch of humans do a crappy job of writing documentation for your product, which then needs proofreading and editing etc. which requires even more humans, you just keep the one good guy and instead of editing and proofreading and adjusting the output of the humans, they do that w/ the output of ChatGPT. From what I've seen from our documentation guys, ChatGPT directly employed by our Product people would be a huge boost to quality. As in, we never even sprang for "the good guy" to begin with.

by cal85 4y ago

danpalmer 4y ago

Somewhat, but I don't think it'll be a huge issue. - Increased accessibility of copy-editing will likely increase the market overall, and therefore increase the market for human copy-editors. - GPT/etc are good but don't have context, taste, and have proven to be quite fallible over multiple rounds of feedback (common in copywriting/illustration in particular), so offer a good starting point that needs human intervention to use. - Copy-editors aren't just a transactional prompt-in-copy-out service in human form, they hold products and brands in their head, understand customer segments and how copy applies to them, define strategy, and so on. They are proactive. Companies with these roles, already benefitting from these things, are unlikely to replace them with software (at least not effectively).

politician 4y ago
If you eliminate the roles of juniors and enhance the productivity of seniors, then what happens when the seniors retire and die off? The number of roles for humans hits zero.
- danpalmer 4y ago
  To be clear, I don't see these tools as being the equivalent of junior staff, I think they fulfil a different role. When I say "expert" I don't mean senior, I mean someone with domain skills. I think these tools will be usable by people of any skill level, and the result will be commensurate with the user's skill level. You'll still be able to hire junior illustrators, they'll use the tools, and they'll produce better results than if they didn't have the tools, but not as good as a senior person with the tools.
  - politician 4y ago
    My concern is that due to the amount of code that these tools can generate, a codebase will rapidly turn into mud in the hands of unskilled people. So, either you build an extensive code review process or only hire people who were working programmers before 2021 and augment them with AI assistants. Unfortunately, the latter kills off the role in a generation while the former kills off the business in the current generation. It’s lose/lose.

tharkun__ 4y ago

Yes absolutely. And it will allow you to replace the generally crappy ones that some companies can/do afford themselves with better copy than the humans churn out today. Instead of having a bunch of humans do a crappy job of writing documentation for your product, which then needs proofreading and editing etc. which requires even more humans, you just keep the one good guy and instead of editing and proofreading and adjusting the output of the humans, they do that w/ the output of ChatGPT. From what I've seen from our documentation guys, ChatGPT directly employed by our Product people would be a huge boost to quality. As in, we never even sprang for "the good guy" to begin with.