Flowers and pearls: "icing on the cake made of flesh and blood"

I was recently asked the interesting question of whether I don't find it annoying to have to read AI texts all the time. The short answer is: no. The long answer is: no, but...

AI has long since become an everyday advisor. It counts calories, advises on divorce or helps with other blackheads. And it works hard in the background. Emails are now error-free, impeccably polite and very impersonal. Or people suddenly have ideas that you would never have expected them to have - or know very confidently about very complicated things. "I asked for advice," they say. As if you could rely on artificial imagination. But for the moment, the effect is a positive one; the foreign feathers at least look quite convincing.

Copywriters also use AI, of course, because yes, copywriters are human too. It produces promptly and pragmatically. Ideal for initiating ideas, gathering input and for very careful research. Because she unabashedly claims some pretty garbage - but at least remarkably credibly. Perfect for 80/20 jobs where accuracy and attitude are secondary. Text work is only a limited part of this.

Something - or that certain something?

What's more, AI is by definition average, it is artificial imitation. And therefore produces average texts - averagely creative, original, touching. So for texts where mediocrity is enough, AI is also enough. As a copywriter, however, it is your job to be above average at least once in a while, but always reliably correct. Attitude, i.e. a mixture of opinion and personality, should also not be underestimated in copywriting - and asking a machine to do this is absurd. But here, too, it is not embarrassed.

Whether the average comes from a machine or a person is therefore irrelevant. However, this also means that from now on, humans are only responsible for the above-average. However, being above average is not always relevant. Sometimes flawlessness is more important than creative fireworks. Sometimes speed is more important than goosebumps. In other words: anysomething is sometimes more important than that certain Something. Then the AI will do it. But hallucinated nonsense is never more important than real research. And imitation is not. But even if it doesn't always need an icing on the cake - and certainly not a cherry on top - if it does, then please make it flesh and blood.

No love for you today

So back to the question of whether it's annoying to read AI texts all the time: No. In fact, machine mediocrity bothers me significantly less than human mediocrity. And if I even notice that a text is written by an AI, I realize at that moment that little energy and care has (intentionally) been put into what I'm reading: so no love for me today. And that also says something.