Why AI is not reviewing my copy
I ran a few articles through AI - Microsoft CoPilot specifically - to see what changes were made, using the simple prompt of “Edit”:
My blog objective is to present my authentic voice. I want you to read my content as though we are in a conversation, not as an editorial article in a corporate email newsletter. In all articles, AI removed how I would have said the same statement in conversation.
Put any of these articles into AI and see what changes were made. Does this minimize my skills as a writer for your company, or is it simply a value-add that eliminates review and edit by a second employee?
Some of the punctuation changed. Replacing an en dash with an em dash – which isn’t native to SquareSpace, so I leave it alone even though it drives me nuts. I use the dash to indicate a pause in my statement as though we were speaking. While my commas were usually placed appropriately, a comma also infers a shorter pause for emphasis in a verbal conversation. Same reason why I don’t always use “and” in a series – an error that AI never pointed out. Even grammatical tense errors that it didn’t catch.
Most changes were made to “The cultural shift: From skills to social status.” This cut a lot. But which version sounds more human? Which version would you rather read if you are looking for a personal perspective on a topic?
Aside from that, the changes were mostly from one word to a stronger word. “Shifted” to “reshaped.” It didn’t reduce my characters by much – maybe 100 words max. I can see how some of those word changes would increase search optimization, like “affordability.” But it also took away other key contextual phrases, like the direct reference to the Industrial Revolution. In my opinion, that minimizes the impact of the analogy: industrial machinery to our modern digital revolution and the concept of a data center “factory.”
Are you viewing this site to hear from me and other humans that I interview, or would you rather a computer edit someone’s quote? Consider my opinion-based editorial as a long-form “quote.” Because if I was writing for a company, these CoPilot edits would be valuable. The copy is more formal. Clauses are limited.
After viewing the Co-Pilot edits to those 4 articles, I would incorporate these changes because I feel it still maintains my voice, just more formal:
Social skills, adaptability, and problem-solving now matter more than credentials alone. Commission‑based roles, skilled trades, and service‑driven careers can be financially viable - and fulfilling - without traditional degree paths.
The assumption was that higher education guaranteed better outcomes - but did it?
Executive assistants, project managers, and administrators rely heavily on writing skills. Similarly, design skills aren’t limited to graphic design - many professionals are expected to create presentations, reports, and visual materials.
Communications consultants often hear that employees don’t view their executives as “relatable” or “honest.” Should AI edit the audio recording of a senior executive’s presentation at a conference too? Removing the way that they deliver a message personally, in the first person?
I added these thoughts as I was publishing, so this didn’t go through AI:
What about the personal preparation of a resume and cover letter to optimize for an AI-driven applicant tracking system (ATS)? Should a job seeker really have to run each resume and cover letter through AI against the job description to customize?
Are we hiring humans or computers? Because you can’t lament a generic resume that’s obviously been run through AI when that’s the way that job seekers have to apply in this competitive job market run by AI. And for Human Resources professionals: if we continue down this path, then your jobs will be replaced by AI too. So take a look at “Don’t blame AI for your job loss” and start to think about what you’ll do when you enter the job market, too.
