Human editors, or ChatGPT for Reliable Publication-ready Work?

ChatGPT was first developed as a writing tool, but it’s now also making waves in the editing industry. But is it doing the job properly? It is free, efficient, and generally correct. Does this imply that it will supplant human editors? We can only learn more by making a thorough and unbiased comparison between the two.

The production and distribution of text-based material have reached previously unheard-of levels thanks to the internet and the exponential growth of digital data, necessitating effective and reliable text editing techniques. Therefore, in today’s information-driven society, the significance of contrasting ChatGPT and expert human text editing cannot be overstated.

Benefits of ChatGPT as an Editor

Generative AI tools like ChatGPT are becoming indispensable in several sectors, including academic publishing. It has made it possible for people and organizations to work more productively and efficiently while using less manual labor. Let’s first look at some of the advantages.

1. Quickness and efficacy

Text editing chores that once took hours can now be finished in half the time thanks to ChatGPT and other AI-powered applications. This frees up time and resources, enabling people to concentrate on other important duties. AI-powered text editors can also process huge amounts of data quickly, which makes them the perfect answer for companies that deal with a lot of text.

2. Reliability

Algorithms are used by ChatGPT and other tools of a similar nature to analyze and edit text, guaranteeing that all mistakes and inconsistencies are found and fixed. No matter who wrote them, this makes sure that all documents and communications are correct and consistent. Consistency is essential, particularly in sectors like pharma, medicine, law, and finance where even seemingly tiny mistakes can have serious repercussions.

3. Scalability

Due to its high scalability, AI text editing is the perfect solution for companies of all sizes. The productivity and efficiency of your business, whether it be a tiny start-up or a major multinational, can be increased with the aid of AI-powered text editors like ChatGPT. Additionally, ChatGPT can be tailored to your company’s unique requirements, ensuring that you receive the most value out of your investment.

While AI text editing has many benefits, it also has some drawbacks, including the inability to comprehend context, recognize certain subtleties, and handle creative problem-solving. Human text editing excels in this situation because humans have a contextual understanding of language and can pick up on subtle nuances and ambiguities that robots miss. In addition to using AI, human editors can also use creative problem-solving to come up with answers.

Let’s investigate a few of these features.

Advantages of Human Editors

Although generative AI tools like ChatGPT are becoming more widely available, academic publishing still relies heavily on human text editing. Human text editing has significant benefits over ChatGPT editing, despite the rising use of AI technologies.

1. Contextual awareness

Human editors can utilize their expertise to ascertain the words’ intended meaning and then alter them accordingly. This guarantees that the content is accurate in conveying the intended message as well as being grammatically correct.

2. The capacity to spot fine distinctions

Text nuances like tone and style can be missed by ChatGPT or other AI-powered technologies, but human text editors are skilled at spotting them. They may make sure the content flows smoothly and sounds natural using their expertise and intuition, making it simpler for the reader to understand. This is crucial in creative writing since tone and style have a big impact on how the material reads as a whole.

3. Ingenious issue-solving

Human text editors are adept at solving problems creatively, which is crucial in some fields like marketing and advertising. They can spot and fix problems that AI-powered technologies might overlook, including inconsistencies in brand messaging or unclear communication. In addition to offering original answers to issues, human editors can rewrite material to increase its impact or engagement. In addition to the advantages that ChatGPT and human editors both offer, each also has several drawbacks.

ChatGPT and Other AI Tools’ Editor Limitations

While AI-powered text editing tools have several advantages, some significant drawbacks need to be taken into account. Here, we concentrate on the drawbacks of scholarly material.

1. Lack of ability to prevent plagiarism

In academic and research writing, plagiarism is a serious problem since it compromises the integrity of the work and can have serious repercussions like manuscript rejection, loss of credibility, and legal action. Despite having the ability to create text from the user’s input, ChatGPT cannot be used to compare the generated text to other sources to detect plagiarism or similarity. Instead of using a plagiarism detection tool that analyzes the text with other sources to look for matches, ChatGPT relies on statistical patterns in massive amounts of text data to respond. Therefore, users run the risk of unintentionally including copied material in their work if they rely solely on ChatGPT to edit their research writing. Serious repercussions may result from this, not only for the user but also for the standing of the organization they are associated with.

As a result, users must utilize ChatGPT in conjunction with other tools and methods for identifying plagiarism, such as manual checking, employing plagiarism detection software, and following the rules for citation and credit. Although ChatGPT can be a helpful tool for text editing and quality improvement, it shouldn’t be relied upon as the only way to guarantee the objectivity of research writing.

2. A lack of contextual awareness

Even though ChatGPT and other AI text editors can spot grammatical and typographical errors, they might not always comprehend the context of the text. For instance, AI text editing software might not be able to distinguish between the intended meaning of homophones like “their” and “there.” The right spelling of both words can be determined by AI, but it might not be able to distinguish between the two depending on the context, leading to unsuitable or inaccurate editing suggestions.

3. Reliance on training and input from humans

The accuracy and efficiency of ChatGPT and other AI text editing tools are improved through human training and input. For these tools to learn and develop their editing abilities, a sizable dataset of text samples is necessary. The caliber and variety of the training dataset for AI text editors can have a big impact on how effective they are. Additionally, human oversight and intervention are necessary for ChatGPT and AI text editors to make sure that their editing suggestions match the intended meaning and tone of the text.

Humans’ Limitations in Editing

Although for centuries the majority of text editing was done by humans, technological advancements have resulted in the creation of AI-powered text editing tools. Human text editing is still essential for assuring the precision and impact of written information, nevertheless. Let’s explore the constraints placed on human editors.

1. Time-consuming

It can take a while for human editors to go through the full text and find and fix errors, especially for longer manuscripts. To assure the text’s accuracy and efficacy, human editors must read it more than once, which can add more time to the editing process.

2. Subject to bias and human error

Humans are prone to errors, including overlooking mistakes, mistyping words, and misreading the text’s intended meaning. Human editors may also be swayed by their prejudices, which could result in the omission or insertion of content that does not support the intended message.

3. Restrictions on scaling

While one editor can review and edit a single text, it can be difficult and time-consuming to edit multiple texts at once. Additionally, there may be inconsistencies in the final product as a result of different editors’ editing styles and standards.