Comparison of ChatGPT and a Human Editor

In the previous post, we talk about the advantages and disadvantages of having a human editor or an AI tool like ChatGPT. In this post, we summarize the features of each and compare their features.

Relevant and contextual editing

The strengths of ChatGPT are its quick identification and correction of errors, uniformity in editing, and scalability. Large text databases can be analyzed, and it can learn from those analyses to get better at editing over time. However, it has drawbacks like the inability to grasp linguistic nuance and context, as well as the propensity to produce inappropriate or irrelevant editing suggestions.

The advantages of human text editing include its capacity for understanding context, spotting minute linguistic variations, and making decisions based on tone and intent. Human editors can also be creative and adaptable in the editing process, tailoring their methods to the particular demands of each manuscript. However, manual text editing takes time and is prone to bias and human error.

Suitability for a variety of texts and situations

Depending on the sort of content and the context in which it is used, ChatGPT and human text editing may or may not be appropriate. The usefulness of ChatGPT and human text editing for research and scholarly text depends on a number of variables. High levels of accuracy, clarity, and coherence are frequently needed in research and scholarly language since these qualities are crucial for effective knowledge transfer and communication. For standardized texts where correctness and consistency are crucial, like research papers, technical manuals, or legal documents, ChatGPT text editing is a good fit.

A preliminary draft can be created by researchers using ChatGPT, which can subsequently be enhanced and further edited by humans. It is crucial to remember that ChatGPT text editing might not be suitable for some scholarly text types, such as those that call for critical analysis or interpretation. Human text editing might be more appropriate, for instance, in literary or humanities studies where the interpretation and analysis of complicated texts are crucial. Similarly, human text editing may be more successful in capturing the nuance and complexity of the research findings in qualitative research, where the researcher’s interpretation of the data is crucial.

The tone and aim of the text are vital in all types of texts, even creative or subjective ones, hence human text editing is better suited for all types of texts. Particularly for research and academic writing, human text editing is essential to ensuring that the content of the text is correct and well-supported. This entails fact-checking, confirming the reliability of the sources, and guaranteeing the coherence and clarity of the text’s arguments. Human editors can make sure that the argument in scholarly writing is convincing, consistent, and backed up by solid evidence. Reviewing data, doing literature reviews, and assisting the author in clearly expressing their research topic and methods are all examples of this.

Which Is Better — Human or ChatGPT Text Editing?

After thorough deliberation, it is clear that human editors are superior to ChatGPT and more trustworthy. This conclusion is supported by several strong arguments.

The natural creative and analytical abilities of the human editor considerably outweigh those of ChatGPT, its AI counterpart. Unlike ChatGPT and other AI technologies, human editors are better able to use these skills to identify and correct grammar and syntax issues as well as suggest alternative wording, reorganize sentences, and modify tone and voice to better suit the target audience. ChatGPT or any other AI tool cannot replicate the complex thought process and nuanced perspective that human editors bring to the table while respecting the author’s voice and guiding them with constructive ideas.

Human editors also have a remarkable capacity for contextualizing and interpreting meaning, which ChatGPT or any other AI tool cannot match. Despite having access to enormous databases and language patterns, AI systems like ChatGPT are fundamentally unable to understand the meaning of a given piece of text. Human editors, on the other hand, are more adept at understanding the text’s context, target audience, and underlying meaning. With this knowledge, human editors are better equipped to guarantee that the content not only complies with grammatical rules but also achieves consistency and meaning.

In addition, human editors are more flexible and intuitive than ChatGPT and other AI tools. These technologies may be able to adapt their recommendations to various writing styles, but they lack the adaptability and sophisticated judgment that human editors have. No matter if the editing needs are formal or casual, technical or creative, human editors can adapt their editing style to meet those needs. Instead of just following a predetermined set of rules, they base their decisions on the author’s tone and style.

Finally, human editors provide the author with a lot of insightful criticism. ChatGPT and other AI technologies may be able to provide ideas, but they are unable to provide the individualized comments and recommendations that human editors can. Human editors offer helpful critiques, explain their positions, and offer suggestions on how to make the content better. They also provide information that ChatGPT and other AI tools cannot match, such as trends in language usage, insights into the publishing sector, and other helpful hints.

As a result, while AI tools like ChatGPT may be useful in some situations, they cannot replace the knowledge and judgment of human editors. No AI technology can equal the creativity, critical thinking, context, adaptability, and feedback provided by human editors. Human editors will continue to play a critical role in ensuring that written works acquire the best possible quality as long as the language is a difficult and subtle means of communication.