AI Didn’t Replace My Editor—It Made Her Indispensable
by Lisa Norman
Four years ago, I wrote a post listing five reasons why AI could never replace human editors. I’d heard some publishers talking about replacing editorial staff, and I was furious. Stepped up on my soap box and complained.
Since then, AI has gotten stronger, faster, and more than a little overconfident. It can generate beautiful prose, fix dangling modifiers, and churn out whole chapters on command. I’ve learned to work with it as a tool for productivity, letting it help with early passes and busywork so I can focus more on the creative parts I love. I actually enjoy vibe writing with a trained AI companion.
But no matter how shiny the technology gets, one truth hasn’t changed: a skilled human editor brings something AI can’t.
Here’s my updated list for 2025, now even longer, of why tech still can’t replace a good editor and why I don’t think it ever will.
1. Right can be wrong
I once read a scene from a book where the same character entered the same room twice, both times sitting down on the same sofa. It wasn’t a repeated page. The second instance was very different from the first. The author had just forgotten that they’d already brought the character in. Every word was spelled correctly. The grammar was flawless. And yet, the scene made no sense.
AI might have flagged a typo, but it wouldn’t have caught that moment of déjà vu. An editor sees it immediately because they’re holding the story in their head, watching the thread weave through every moment.
2. Wrong can be right
One of the fastest ways to flatten a story is to “fix” what wasn’t broken. A fragment for impact. An odd turn of phrase that reveals character. Repetition used like a drumbeat to drive a point home at just the right crisis moment.
AI can be taught to leave these alone. But it’s not reading for effect. It’s not using those techniques for power or tension. It’s reading for conformity or stylistic patterns. A human editor understands that voice matters more than rules, and that sometimes breaking the rules is exactly what makes a story sing.
3. Content can be missing
Years ago, I gave my editor a scene I thought was vivid. She said, “I can’t see it. Where are we?” I realized I’d been seeing the image in my head, but never put it on the page. She could tell it was supposed to be important, something was supposed to be there. And she cared enough to help me track down the missing bits.
An AI might suggest, “Add description here,” but it doesn’t know if that detail fits the mood, the pacing, or the character’s emotional state. An editor will guide you toward what belongs in that moment.
4. Right may not be good enough
Some scenes need more than correctness; they need power.
For instance, AI can tidy up grammar and even expand a scene if prompted. But it can’t feel when a turning point lands flat, or when the ending doesn’t deliver the emotional release the story has been building toward. A great editor will push you to take it further, to dig into the rawness and risk that transforms “good enough” into unforgettable.
5. Writing gets messy
Stories aren’t built in straight lines. One moment we’re trapped in a corner, the next we’re staring at a loose thread, and before we know it, a scene has grown so heavy it collapses under its own weight.
AI can suggest fixes, but it doesn’t know the emotional logic or subtext behind your choices. An editor will talk you through the mess, ask the questions that matter, and help you find the clean path forward. A good editor will care as much for a story as the author does and will help find a path that works for the story you meant to tell.
6. AI bias and genre mismatch
AI learns from massive datasets, but those datasets lean toward the familiar. That can mean “helpful” suggestions that actually pull your work away from your genre’s expectations and tropes.
A human editor who knows your genre will protect its nuances: the rhythms of a cozy mystery, the stakes of a thriller, the lyricism of fantasy. Instead of sanding them down into something generic, a skilled editor will help you make your work uniquely yours.
7. Ethical and cultural nuance
Sensitivity is more than word choice. It’s about context, history, and impact. AI might catch certain flagged terms, but it won’t stop to ask whether a character’s portrayal could hurt the readers you most want to reach.
A talented editor can. They’ll spot the moment where an unintended implication slips in and causes harm, and even better, they can help you address it without losing the heart of your story.
8. Voice development, not just preservation
AI can mimic your style. If you’ve worked with it long enough, it can help you maintain consistency. Sometimes it can even help you grow, but in predictable ways, showing you techniques that are powerful but not showing you how to make them your own.
An editor will challenge you to deepen your voice, to stretch in new directions, to polish what’s uniquely yours. They don’t just hold the line; they push you to do better.
9. Emotional resilience and accountability
A human editor knows the struggles an author is going through. When you have a good relationship with a talented editor, they’ll notice when you’re starting to falter. They’ll remind you why this story matters, celebrate with you when a stubborn scene finally works, and nudge you to keep going when you want to walk away.
AI doesn’t care. It doesn’t notice when your confidence falters or when you’ve been staring at the same sentence for an hour. It may mimic empathy, but it can’t really understand what you need in a moment of crisis.
10. Editors notice AI “tells” and know when to call them out
Every tool writers use leaves a smudge of ink on the page. AI is no different. It might lean too hard on certain turns of phrase, produce paragraphs of suspiciously even lengths, or fill a page with words that sound polished but say almost nothing. It will use an em dash every chance it gets. And while it can learn to sound like you and write like you, there will still be moments when its voice interrupts yours.
Real editors see these tells. They can hand a page back to you and say, “This doesn’t sound like you.” The right editor will restore your voice.
The heart of humanity
AI is powerful. I use it for brainstorming, outlining, research, even drafting. I value what it can do and I growl when an update changes it. But an AI doesn’t care about you or your story. It doesn’t notice the small nuances that make a reader lean in. It doesn’t hold you accountable to the best version of your work.
As an indie publisher, I’ve worked with many editors. Some good, some bad. If you’ve only worked with a mediocre one, you might think an AI could do better, and you might even be right. But the real magic happens when you find a skilled, professional editor who understands your vision and challenges you to meet it. My favorite editor is a self-proclaimed “Grammarwitch” with skills that exceed mere mortals.
A good editor is rare and precious. They see the book you’re trying to write and become a vital partner in the adventure.
What about you? Have you worked with both AI and human editors? What differences have you noticed in the way they shape your work?
* * * * * *
About Lisa
Lisa Norman's passion has been writing since she could hold a pencil. While that is a cliché, she is unique in that her first novel was written on gum wrappers. As a young woman, she learned to program and discovered she has a talent for helping people and computers learn to work together and play nice. When she's not playing with her daughter, writing, or designing for the web, she can be found wandering the local beaches.
Lisa writes as Deleyna Marr and is the owner of No Stress Writing Academy. She also runs Heart Ally Books, LLC, an indie publishing firm.
Interested in learning more from Lisa? Sign up for her newsletter or check out her school, No Stress Writing Academy, where she teaches social media, organization, technical skills, and marketing for authors!
Top image by Deleyna via Midjourney.
Leave a Reply
47 comments on “AI Didn’t Replace My Editor—It Made Her Indispensable”
Tagged as:
Subscribe to WITS
Recent Posts
- Want Stronger Writing? Start Writing Less.
- How to Create Compelling Hooks for Every Chapter
- Things that Stop Us in Our Tracks: Are you your worst enemy?
- How to Use Dialogue Tags and Keep the Flow
- How to be Awesome Reading Your Story Aloud
This is a magnificent blog! Thank you, Lisa! We writers are standing at the top of the waterfall, watching the barrel of human intelligence hanging on the edge - just a nudge away from the descent from the creative intelligence that holds culture afloat. Sending lifelines to culture (and to each other!)
Expecting AI to do a writing job is like sending your robot down to the theater to watch a movie for you. It's all an invitation to ..... the zombie apocalypse? Hah. No wonder zombies have become so popular. Empty minds! Writers fill up at the tank of our shared humanity, and then craft those human impressions in words that emerge from our inner lives.
I don't read many articles on this topic (too busy writing) - but by spelling out these features of human versus AI writing, you are bringing a big complex controversy down into compelling, understandable points. Nicely done.
My goodness, Jerry! Your barrel over the waterfall analogy is marvelous! And spot on!
Thanks, Jerry. I'm fascinated by both the potential good and bad available as AI enters the different spaces of the world. I love the analogy of sending the robot to the movies, because we want to hold onto the joy!
Nice blog! I like the process of writing, the discovery. I don't think AI gets emotional depth or nuance. That takes a human.
I agree, Sylvie. It can mimic emotion, but not understand the depths.
Well said, Lisa. AI can be helpful in the right place, but it's not human.
Vivienne - exactly! It is a tool, and like any tool it responds to the hands that wield it. In writing as in many other things, sometimes true craftmanship is in which tool we choose to use at which time.
Thank you, Lisa. Such an important warning. I've never used AI but fellow writers have suggested that I use it to write a synopsis that a publisher has requested since I hate doing that more than anything else. Wondering what you think of that idea if I then touch it up to make it sound human. Thanks for any opinion you or anyone else can offer.
Here's a blog post that covers this topic nicely:
[Link deleted]
Since the link didn't come through in my other post... KJ Charles covers this topic on her blog in an excellent post called Weak Ankles and AI: An Extended Metaphor. If you're able to search it out it's well worth the time.
Brad - DO IT! Seriously. That's a terrible job that you aren't going to enjoy doing. You've done the creative part, let the AI do the part you don't like. BUT... and here's the key: DO follow up and read it, change it into your words. Additionally, I want to give you some suggestions. If you are using a free version, it can't summarize a novel. Too many words. Have it summarize 3 chapters, for example. Then have it give you that summary. THEN start a new discussion and say, "here's a summary of what came before. I'm going to give you 3 chapters more. Can you add to the previous summary?" Now depending on the length of your chapters and the skill of a free version, you may have to break it down into even smaller chunks. But CHUNK it, because the average AI has the memory (aka context window) of a goldfish.
What may happen, and I encourage you to try and find, is that you may begin to see your story in another way and it may make the process of writing your synopsis FUN.
Just remember: it is a tool. Be aware and learn from what it gets wrong as well as what it gets right.
Will it make the synopsis faster? Maybe. Can it be fun? Yes. Can it be frustrating? YES.
But it CAN absolutely do a great synopsis. Just be clear in your instructions. "I'm writing a synopsis of this story for my publisher." Otherwise it'll think you're asking for weaknesses and get all sorts of judgy. (grin)
IF you have a paid version and you've done some work training it, then you may be able to drop in more of a book and have it do the synopsis and it might get much closer to right the first time. But that training takes time.
An AI makes a fantastic publishing assistant. But like any assistant, you have to teach them what you want.
Have fun! And good luck with that synopsis and the publication!
Oh - and go through afterwards and remove 99.9% of the emdashes.
Thank you for this valuable advice. It's so kind of you to give so much of your time and expertise to us. I do like emdashes but will remove them.
Btw, goldfish made me LOL.
What a fabulous blog, Lisa! I do more editing than writing these days, and I love how this sticks up for what we do.
I have only one minor quibble, with this tell: "[AI] will use an em dash every chance it gets." Well, yes, it does, but as a writer, so do I. No one can deny that AI uses a lot of em dashes, but that's because the writers it learns from use them, too. I love my em dashes, and a LOT of writers—and editors—I know feel that way, too, and are pushing back against that supposed tell. But tomayto, tomahto
Arrggh, I hit send too quickly. That was supposed to read, "tomayto, tomahto—it was still a wonderful article I'm going to share lots!"
Oh, Linda - I absolutely agree! I use em dashes ALL the time, and I've had discussions with my editor that I want to recover the right to use the em dash the same way she wants to recover semicolon usage. I've actually already written my Nov WITS post and it is about em dashes!
The saddest part right now is that we have people out running around with tomaytos (sic) and pitchforks and throwing them at any author who DARES to use an em dash. If you look at any of the "AI Tells" with the eye of a professional writer, you'll quickly realize that they're just power moves that authors use every day. Parallelism? Lists of 3? Various other rhetorical devices? ALL tools of a skilled writer.
I love emdashes. But I have been cutting back on their use just because I do write in spaces where it may be dangerous. I'm hoping this phase passes quickly.
Lisa, thank you for these thorough insights. Very helpful.
You're welcome, Paula!
The fact is that AI 'editing' programs can be wrong as often as they are right. Grammarly and ProWritingAid, for example, are wrong at least 25% of the time, more often than that with complex sentence and paragraph structures. They often make suggestions that are simply incorrect. They are lacking in the ability to understand nuance or an author using foreign words and dialect.
I use both as a spell checker and to pick up 'brain farts' such as typing they're when I meant their, but 90% of the time when they suggest wording, it is either incorrect as to meaning or nuance or simply weaker than the original.
YES! Thank you for posting this! I totally agree--even down to your percentages. If any of my authors use programs like Grammarly, I insist that they stop. It makes even more work for an editor.
And we need to protect our editors as the valuable resources they are!
100% JR. It can be helpful to get us to question whether we've used the most powerful or appropriate words, but in the end, the human needs to make those choices. Because OFTEN the wrong word IS the right word!
Well said! Although it does seem ironic the top image is by AI...
Thanks, K - but understand: I'm not anti-AI. There are things that it does well. In this instance, it created exactly the image I wanted since I struggle to draw. I am all in favor of letting the AI do the things I'm not great at while saving my energy for things that I love.
Beautiful article, Lisa. It should give every good editor out there the confidence to keep going when theirs sags, and encourage every writer to seek out a human editor who is the right editor for them. I loved it. Thanks.
Lori - There's no replacement for a good editor. And I'm encouraging editors to learn how to help writers USE their AI assistants more wisely. More writing? More need for expert editors.
I agree that capable human editors are worth their weight in gold, but have to offer a caution about using AI. While in the past I've used AI to generate comp ideas, I now abstain due to the gross environmental impact. Did you know an AI search uses 22 times as much energy as a Google search? When AI companies sort out that aspect of the technology, I'll get back on board. Maybe. [Link deleted]
There's something weird, too, about AI generation's use of water resources, too. I read something about that last week. I don't understand why or how; maybe it has to do with hydroelectric power generation? The post I read made note that AI generation facilities are located on top of aquifers in arid areas, thus reducing the water resource for regional communities. That wants more looking into ...
The water is used to cool the servers, which can get very hot when they're running. Some of it can be reused once it's removed the heat, but it's often simpler and cheaper to let it evaporate or pour it down the drain.
Thanks for stepping in with that information, Steven.
Sally M - Steven has already answered this. When you use your desktop computer, do you notice it getting hot? All computers generate heat. At the level of these super computer centers, we're talking a LOT of heat. When they build a bunch of them together, they often drop a well for EACH building in the complex, and hopefully they're recycling and reusing a bunch of that water. But yes, it is a concern when they impact the water of local communities and this must be addressed. We need to be cautious in how we use them.
SM - That’s such an important point, and thank you for raising it with respect, even though I'll tell you that I've seen this discussion taken in some harsh and unproductive ways. I want to respect your point and say that you are absolutely within your rights to abstain.
The environmental impact of AI is something we absolutely need to keep discussing. You’re right that early reports showed AI searches consuming significantly more energy than a standard Google search, with some estimates as high as twenty times more a few years ago. But more recent data suggests that efficiency is improving quickly. For example, a 2025 analysis from Google estimated that a typical text query to Gemini used roughly 0.24 watt hours of electricity, which is in the same range as a standard web search, and only a few drops of water for cooling.
(https://arxiv.org/html/2508.15734v1 and https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/infrastructure/measuring-the-environmental-impact-of-ai-inference/ )
That said, when you multiply even small numbers by millions of users, the collective impact becomes serious. The same could be said for many modern tools we rely on: the data centers that power email and streaming (don't get me started on the cost of spam!), the cars and planes that move us, even the energy intensive publishing process itself. Each of these systems carries a footprint, and we’re all learning how to balance creativity, convenience, and care for the planet.
For me, that’s part of why this conversation matters so much. Writers are already good at thinking about long term consequences; it’s part of what we do. If we stay aware and keep asking questions like yours, we can help guide technology toward cleaner, more conscious use instead of rejecting it outright. That’s the kind of partnership I’d like to see: human insight and innovation working together responsibly.
I don't think that we can stop this movement by not using the tools, although I've certainly met people who do. But I think we have the ability to increase awareness and help push for better environmental stewardship not just with AI but with many other processes.
Again, thank you for bringing this up.
This post comes just two days after I met with a coordinator at a local writing center, who has asked me to run an editing workshop in January. Perfect timing! And excellent points! Thank you!
Sally M - have fun with that workshop. I hope this helps! Well trained editors are critical for writers.
Great and comforting observations about AI. Much needed now when we all know so much to fear about it. Hooray for editors...and you.
Thanks, Jeanne. I think there is a lot of fear about this, and a lot of bad information out there. I've seen some truly fun things coming out of AI. So it isn't all bad.
Honestly, I'm loving AI. It is NOT replacing the things that make me a good writer (or person!) but I'm using it to round out things I might have missed by giving me a wider perspective. I haven't used it for fiction yet, since I'm doing so many things in non-fiction, but I'm glad to have another tool.
Great article, Lisa! Thanks!
Sarah Sally - I know you, so for anyone reading, I'll state this: you're a brilliant editor and an amazing writer in both the non-fiction space and the fiction space. And you're taking time to learn to use it wisely. My own PERSONAL opinion (not representative of WITS) is that taking time to learn to use this tool wisely is a brilliant move.
Lisa, thank you for your thoughtful and encouraging perspective. Real human lives are messy, and real human stories are messy, too. In most of the manuscripts I see, the mess is exactly where the story gold lies hidden. If AI cleans up the mess, the story is in danger of being swept up and tossed away, too. What remains is uncanny-valley perfection - looks good, has the correct shape, doesn't feel right. (Yes, that's meant to be an em-dash!)
Excellent explanation, Sabine! And this is where real editors shine. Real editors also often make writers annoyed. They're willing to take those chances for the strength of a story. And AIs will work with what you give them, but they don't want to upset to humans.
The bad is too common, too egregious, too ever-present - I have zero interest in using any of it when I have to go back and check EVERY SINGLE WORD, SENTENCE, ETC., that it produces.
Absolutely exhausting.
When PROGRAMS I use add the 'AS' (yeah, not 'I'), I turn it off where possible, ignore it the rest of the time. Except I always check the things spellcheckers underline - just in case.
I've spent way too much time developing me.
There are a few random places where you can use it - where it might be worth the cleanup time - but nope. It's a hyperactive toddler with a paint bucket.
And that's a fair position to take, Alicia. Sometimes the training time just isn't worth the effort. And I have absolutely seen these LLMs behave like untrained goldfish. They CAN do better, they can BE better. But that doesn't mean that you need to invest your time in training them when what you have is working for you as it is!
I rely on ProWriting Aide heavily in my editing process, and I married my "grammar witch." I no longer give my wife a manuscript until I've made at least two passes with PWA (fair is fair). PWA has been a great learning tool, as it well explains its suggestions, so my drafts are generally much better now. Good article. Thanks!
Jerold, tools like PWA (also one I love) can help teach us and strengthen our writing. It can help us write polished and beautiful prose. And, I think it can also make our editors' lives easier. Mine has been grateful for the cleaner writing. And there's this subtle shift where the editor then has more time and energy to get into details that only a human can process. I'm really enjoying the collaboration these days, and I think my editor is too!
Absolutely!!!
Thanks for reading, Denise!
Yes, I have had plenty of help with AI. My ProWritingAid had taken on ChatGPT for assistance, as did Autocrit, and I was paying for these programs. Then, both programs either stopped working or required more money for the most basic. EditGPT would strip everything from the text. Alll of them removed God, grace, or just simply didn't write about it. ChatGPT itself does the same. So I keep both copies of what ChatGPT said side by side to evaluate what was taken out. Sometimes faith is stripped out. Sometimes the meaning is twisted or the context, even words that are appropriate and fit are removed. I wrote a recent novel, which I had to correct all of those issues. Because it's PC, it removed a section about racism and I had to put that back in. Re-reading it? After CMOS was required? It didn't put the appropriate quotation marks, AND left in some spelling errors. Never ever ever trust ChatGPT for anything. Or any program. In total agreement. Last, it tries to humanize itself and I ignore it. It's not a human. It's supposed to help me edit. Phooey.
Claire,
You’ve touched on something I’ve worried about deeply, and actually devoted several chapters to in my recent book, because I noticed the same patterns early in my AI experiments. Somehow, I’ve managed to train my own system not to filter out faith, but only by making it clear that this is a central part of my core belief system. In my private workspace, it understands that if it removes those elements, it will lose my attention entirely.
Your mileage has clearly varied, and that matters. Every AI model reflects both its generalized training data and the way it’s used, as well as the way we train it. Anything we create with AI still needs to be read, re-read, and refined by a human. Without that step, there’s no real value. These tools require patient, intentional shaping before they can become useful.
For me, working with AI feels less like co-writing and more like using an exceptionally fast, occasionally clumsy voice-to-text system. It helps me get ideas down quickly, but the meaning and the message are still entirely human work.