I don't write for a living, but I do consider communication / communicating a hobby of sorts. My observations - that perhaps you can confirm or refute - are: -

I don't write for a living, but I do consider communication / communicating a hobby of sorts. My observations - that perhaps you can confirm or refute - are: - Most people don't communicate as thoroughly and complete - written and verbal - as they think they do. Very often there is what I call "assumptive communication". That is, sender's ambiguity that's resolved by the receiver making assumptions about what was REALLY meant. Often, filling in the blanks is easy to do - as it's done all the time - but not always. The resolution doesn't change the fact there was ambiguity at the root. Next time you're communicating, listen carefully. Make note of how often the other person sends something that could be interpreted differently, how often you assume by using the default of "what they likely meant was..." - That said, AI might not replace people like you. Or me? But it's an improvement for the majority of people. AI isn't perfect, hardly. But most people don't have the skills a/o willingness to communicate at a level AI can simulate. Improved communication is not easy. People generally want ease and comfort. AI is their answer. They believe you are replaceable because it replaces them and they assume they're good communicators. Classic Dunning-Kruger. p.s. One of my fave comms' heuristics is from Frank Luntz*: "It's not what you say, it's what they hear." (<< edit was changing to "say" from "said".) One of the keys to improved comms is to embrace that clarify and completeness is the sole responsibility of the sender, not the receiver. Some people don't want to hear that, and be accountable, especially then assumption communication is a viable shortcut. * Note: I'm not a fan of his politics, and perhaps he's not The Source of this heuristic, but read it first in his "Words That Work". The first chapter of "WTW" is evergreen comms gold.