In response to your article (‘Being human helps’: despite rise of AI is there still hope for Europe’s translators?, 8 May), I work freelance for a company that produces memoirs for its customers. I used to interview, then write. Now, I interview, a large language model writes, and I am paid half of my previous fee to edit the result.
It takes as long to edit the AI-generated text as it used to take me to write the memoir. There are several reasons for this.
First, the AI content is tedious and homogeneous. I could ignore that problem, but I have a relationship with the often vulnerable people I interview. Second (and yes, I know that AI is constantly improving in this regard), it produces rubbish if an interviewee is less than coherent. Third, I am required by my employer to “check for accuracy”, which the company presents as a quick additional task, but which is in fact impossible without a full cross-reference of interviews against the draft.
It’s a cynical and nifty way to get work done at half the cost. The agency pretends that the AI is genius, and that my part in the writing process is cursory.
I wonder how many others in roles impacted by AI are still working, but earning half.
Name and address supplied
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.