Copywriters, content writers, journalists etc, do you worry about Chat GPT?

[WeAreAllLionesses]

If you write for a living or are freelance, are you concerned about your potential loss of income?

I am a freelance copywriter and wonder how much we will be affected.

YABU - nothing can replace writing by a proper human being
YABU - not long until the robots take over...

Do you think readers will spot the difference and be turned off by it? I always thought romance writing was actually very hard. The audience is meant to be quite demanding in what it wants?

I should add, I work in Conversational AI.

I think the people saying it lacks warmth, compassion, personality, and a 'human touch'. Haven't played about enough with it yet.

It's only as good as the request you put in. Ask for 'a blog post about top breads of dogs' and you'll get a very different output from if you asked for 'a blog post about top dog breads of 2023, for a website that's aimed at retired women living in Scotland. Written in the style of friends talking to each other.'

It's also going from 175billion data points to 100 trillion. So that'll make a huge difference.

Sadly, that is a pretty big market.

I suspect the copyrighters that work with large companies charging higher fees will be expect to reduce their prices to compete with ChatGPT. The work will still be their, but unfortunately valued less.

I'm not sure about that. A few years ago, the marketing copywriting market suddenly became awash with journalists, because the press had let a lot of people go. The journos were willing to write for £150 a day, because that was the going rate in the press industry, whereas copywriters in the marketing sector usually charge double that or more.

At the time, some people were saying that the copywriters would have to reduce their fees because the £150/day journos would drop the bottom out of the market.

It hasn't really happened; mainly because journalists and copywriters still do different things, even within the marketing and advertising sector. But also because the ad industry is used to paying £400 a day for a good copywriter, so the journalists who were any good tended to get that day rate without anyone blinking.

I do think AI will scalp some work but it won't be the creative work.

I saw an early version of similar software, years ago. At the time, I didn't think much of it...now, about 7 years on, I think - it's a problem. Someone mentioned it being unable to cross-reference law - I thought that was on the test it just passed?

I am so glad I'm reaching the end of my career. There's no end point in terms of what tech will destroy - or "people using tech" if you prefer.

Exactly this, clickbait articles and the like are going to be worst hit. While these do clearly employ people to write them, it's had it's time and offers little value so hard to argue with this type of role being replaced.

@pinkfluffycushion Did that press release get any bites? Or did you generate it to hit your own random KPIs?

Journalist here. Can't remember the last time I used a press release. Would be years ago. Pay someone to pitch directly by email to the right journalist. Don't waste budget generating shite that gets you no visibility.

@YukoandHiro

Hey journalist I pulled out the info into an email, tweaked the bits I needed to, added in a direct quote and sent it to my press contacts. Yes I did get responses from it and I'd do it again.

Ideally yes I'd be able to pay someone to do every task I need doing but as a small business, I simply can't! Don't hate on the AI - I'm sure it can help you in some way too!

@pinkfluffycushion could it pitch for me? 🤣

I'd be a convert if so...

For anyone interested, Nick Cave has some interesting thoughts about AI for songwriting (and creativity more broadly).

www.theredhandfiles.com/chat-gpt-what-do-you-think/

Worth a read.

I was a copywriter back in the day, and I don't think it would have had much impact on my work (mostly annual reports and financial statements) because by definition my output was based on personal one-to-one interviews that were confidential until publication. But for standard consumer stuff...

I agree with him. Replication does not mean good art. I remember, years ago, when CGI first came out and people talked about being able to recreate performances from dead actors and programme them with new lines. But it hasn't been done because I think it would leave an audience cold. Or perhaps their estates have blocked it? But I want to watch, gaze upon, read and listen to art produced by human beings who have something to say. AI has nothing to say that has not already been said.

I use a (paid for) AI program as a tool in producing information for my clients, and also to provide outlines for my blog. Basically, it saves time for me in generating rough drafts, but I still need to rewrite to put the words into my "voice". I also need to do the underlying research to evidence what I am saying. There are issues with critical reasoning, and it is very poor with creative reasoning. An AI would struggle to produce, for example, a quality scientific report, without being spoonfed every step of the way.

These AIs are trained on existing internet content. They aren't trained on (for example) all the course content and additional reading required to earn a degree in any discipline. They lack the capacity to differentiate between fact and theory/opinion (they can define the difference if asked, but not demonstrate it in practice). They are simply a tool, and like any tool the final quality of their output will depend on the person wielding the tool.

To summarise, it halves the time I put into producing content (which makes paying for it, worth it), but couldn't possibly replace me, in terms of my knowledge and experience.

@ScienceDragon how much, would you say, you use the original AI content in your submission to clients?