AI is great for getting past “white page syndrome.” A blank document and a flashing cursor can be frustrating and overwhelming. You may not know how to begin. This is a perfect time for you to use AI to generate a list of problems your ideal customers may be struggling with. Or to suggest 10 variations of a blog post title. Or something else to get you started.
Like it or hate it, you will probably have an opinion on what AI suggested and you won’t feel blocked anymore.
But what if you’re an expert in a certain type of writing? What if you have 30 years of experience working with a specific type of document? In my case, resumes. Should I ask AI for suggested edits? And if I do, should I take its suggestions?
I really am struggling with this. I am concerned that many experts will assume that AI knows best. I am concerned that many clients will second-guess my advice because AI suggested something different.
In fact, this happened recently.
A client sent me a resume that was a terrific first draft, but I was certain it would benefit from reformatting and editing. I spent a few hours on the document and came up with a professional summary I liked a lot. I thought I presented my client in the best possible light. They looked accomplished and valuable.
My client was very pleased, but then came back with some questions and edits. They had asked AI to suggest some rewrites for their professional summary because of a word I had used.
I read the AI-generated revised summary and thought the client would potentially miss out on $20K in salary.
The copy was okay. It wasn’t the terrible, ponderous word salad that most people send me. But it didn’t have any juice. It wasn’t sharp. It lacked electricity. It wasn’t as skimmable as what I had written initially, although all the important facts were still in it.
I didn’t know what to say to the client, so I edited it slightly and sent it back to them. I didn’t tell them that I thought they had diluted their value in the marketplace by taking out the word I had used.
The problem is that the reason I felt like they were potentially shooting themselves in the foot was primarily based on my gut reaction to reading what they sent me. It was a difference in a stylistic choice, rather than something that was objectively right or wrong. I couldn’t reference a spelling or grammar rule.
I evaluate much of what I write by how it makes my body feel when I read it again. This is how I help my clents attract opportunities and be relevant to potential opportunities.
I guess we could send out the two different versions and see which one works and gets my client an interview. Or, maybe I don’t want to fight this fight.
I am wondering if all writers and thought leaders experience push back these days because AI has made everyone feel like it’s the expert that should not be questioned. I think this could be a big issue going forward.
Photo by Luke Jones on Unsplash
