Proofreading - Human vs AI

Which Is Best?
(3 min read)

Ah, a classic response - "it depends." 

It depends on the level of accuracy you want. Yes, humans do have failure rate—tools are your friend—but there are plenty of examples sharing "hallucinations" of AI or simply wrong source material or "where did it even get that from"!

We should be able to agree that AI needs humans to double-check its work. AI is very much in its infancy and is in a training phase. You wouldn't let your 4-year-old proofread your doctorate dissertation or business proposal, would you? 

What About Cost?
Ah—another "it depends" response.

Many seem to choke on the price to hire a trained proofreader. Absolutely understandable. If you're an author, there are many layers of editors to consider hiring, each with a different purpose, giving pause to consider how many is really necessary or useful. Can't you just pass it to Aunt Mary who used to be a teacher? I suppose so, but how long has she been retired or what subject did she teach? Is she really the best proofreader to help your project be amazing?

There are many less expensive options on Fivvr or Upwork. Many offering their services on these platforms are often new to proofreading or from another country where English is not the native language. It makes a difference in how your work is proofread. 

What About AI Options?
Many have heard of Grammarly as a great AI editing/proofreading resource. There are similar services available. Grammarly readily notes it uses AI to "improve" writing suggestions. Be sure to see if your AI proofreading tool follows a style guide if it's critical for your work.

If you need to follow a particular style guide for your work, Grammarly admits it uses a rather general frame of grammar reference. If you need to follow CMOS (Chicago Manual of Style), AP (Associated Press Stylebook), AMA (American Medical Association), or other style guides, Grammarly will not be useful.

Team Human or Team AI?
Many proofreaders and editors feel bound by a standard of ethics to call out writers using a high level of AI to create their work. I'll admit, I advise caution in this. Many now blend their own words with assistance from AI. It's a subjective scale to decide level of human vs AI and determine what's predominantly AI.

Plagiarism checkers have historically been challenged on their level of accuracy. This is an interesting article from the University of Kansas urging caution in plagiarism checkers. We're all cautioned on the need to fact check AI results. I've found many instances of AI "hallucination" or just plain making things up. Many folks even fight suggestions offered in Office's Word with good reason! 

AI is useful as an idea generator and to help refine your thoughts, but as a proofreader? Sure, I'm biased, but I'm on Team Human all the way for proofreading. 

Transparency and AI
The best bet is to be up front with your clients how much of your proofreading work is human vs AI assisted. There are a number of tools available to proofreaders to maximize their eyes catching errors. I wouldn't consider all of them "AI," such as the use of "macros" or PerfectIt. Could an author use these tools themselves and not a proofreader? Sure thing! I suggest it depends on the cost of the tool and your time, how prolific you may be in your writing, vs hiring a trained proofreader who may use these tools to assist their human read-through. Hiring a proofreader should carry the expectation of 1-2 human readings of your work and not fully rely on tools.

I predict a day will come soon where work will be stamped as Human© as there is already a demand by some to note AI use.

In the realm of proofreading, are you on Team Human or Team AI? Love to hear your thoughts!

I provide a number of services for nonprofits, small businesses, entrepreneurs, and authors. I look forward to discussing ways to Engage your customers - Let's Chat!

---