Publishers Using AI to Replace Human Writers Will Fail

Some links may help generate a commission that supports The Addition.

The Washington Post is reportedly exploring partnerships with other newspapers, Substack writers, and even non-professional writers (gasp!). This is part of attempts to expand the opinion section, according to Benjamin Mullin at The New York Times. At the heart of this story is, of course, AI, which the paper will use to support writers, presumably, the non-pros who don’t have access to a human editor or the skills to write a proper piece. (Yes, I’m being a snob. Sorry, not sorry.)

Mullin reports:

Ember, the AI writing coach being developed by The Post, could automate several functions normally provided by human editors, the people said. Early mock-ups of the tool feature a “story strength” tracker that tells writers how their piece is shaping up, with a sidebar that lays out basic parts of story structure: “early thesis,” “supporting points” and “memorable ending.” A live A.I. assistant would provide developmental questions, with writing prompts inviting authors to add “solid supporting points,” one of the people said.

Truth and standards matter, but the democratisation of media, whether it is written, video or audio, is generally a good thing. The more voices, the merrier. The market can generally weed out the rubbish, if not the disinformation.

AI tools can be useful in producing work. From Grammarly to ChatGPT, I use them myself. However, Ember does not seem to be about cleaning up typos, cleaning up clunky sentences, or finding good entry points for research. It is about handholding writers through the entire process.

The great opinion pieces are human, not formulaic. Creators of such work do not need a tool reminding them what structure should be.

AI in News and Views

The same issues are seeping into news. I previously reported on a tool being used by Reach that rewords stories published on other properties owned by the company. A source at the time said that “it spews out stuff that a five-year-old would write.” That source confirmed with me that “it’s still shit”.

Outlets like WaPo and companies like Reach think that getting more, cheaper content is going to be the answer to their financial problems. Click, click, click.

They are going to be wrong.

People will not want AI-generated slop or formulaic work. Look at what does well already. The likes of Emily Sundberg, Puck and Ezra Klein. The sassy Substack writers, scoop-getters and punchy podcasters – actual humans – are going to be the ones that grab and keep attention.

And they are going to be the ones that make money and survive.