I sat across from an editor at a coffee shop in Kuala Lumpur last month. Sarah had been editing academic papers for 15 years. She looked exhausted.
"I'm using ChatGPT now," she admitted, almost embarrassed. "But not the way you think."
This confession made me stop and listen. Because Sarah represents something I'm seeing across the entire editing profession: a quiet revolution. Not a takeover. Not a replacement. But a fundamentally different way of thinking about what editors do.
The Confession Nobody Wants to Make
When people talk about AI in the workplace, they usually talk about fear. "Will AI replace me?" "If machines can write, why hire editors?"
But that's not what's happening in the editing world. What's actually happening is stranger, more interesting, and worth understanding.
Editors are using AI tools. But they're using them the way a surgeon uses an MRI machine—not to replace surgery, but to see things more clearly.
Let me explain what I mean.
The Invisible Part of Editing
Here's what most people don't understand about editing: The hardest work happens before the pen hits the paper.
An editor's job isn't just fixing commas. It's not even finding plagiarism (though that matters). The real work is structural. Conceptual. It's about asking: "Does this argument actually work? Are these ideas arranged logically? Is the author missing something critical?"
This requires reading between the lines. Understanding what the writer meant to say versus what they actually said. Spotting the gap where an idea falls apart.
For years, editors did this entirely in their heads. We'd read a manuscript, think deeply about it, and write lengthy feedback. Sometimes this took hours. Sometimes days.
Now? Some editors are using AI differently.
How It Actually Works
Sarah showed me her workflow. It wasn't what I expected.
First, she'd read the paper normally. No AI involved. She'd form her own opinions, identify the weak points.
Then—and this was key—she'd use ChatGPT to do something specific: Extract the argument structure.
She'd prompt it: "What is the central thesis of this paper? List all the supporting arguments in order."
ChatGPT would spit out a clean, bulleted outline. Nothing fancy. But suddenly, something became visible that might have been buried in dense prose: An argument that didn't actually support the thesis. A logical leap. A missing premise.
She hadn't needed AI to find these things. She could have done it herself, slowly, by hand. But the AI made the invisible visible instantly.
Then she'd use it again: "In this paragraph, what is the author claiming? What evidence do they provide?"
By the time she actually started writing feedback, her thinking was clearer. Sharper. More precise.
"I'm not letting AI think for me," she said. "I'm using it to think faster."
The Thing Machines Can't Do
Here's what matters: When Sarah sat down to write her actual editorial feedback, it was 100% her. No AI wrote it. No AI made the judgments.
The AI just did the boring part—the extraction, the organization, the visible structure.
The human part—the thinking part—that was all her.
This distinction matters because it explains why editors aren't actually threatened by AI. We're threatened by the idea of AI. But the reality is different.
A machine can tell you "this sentence is 47 words long and should probably be shorter." But a machine can't tell you "this sentence is trying to explain a complex idea, and the author is using vague language because they themselves don't fully understand it yet—here's how to help them clarify their thinking."
That second insight requires something machines don't have: experience. Judgment. An understanding of how human minds actually work.
The Real Partnership
What Sarah and other editors are discovering is that AI works best as a partner, not an employee.
Think about it this way. An editor without AI is like a researcher without Google. They can do the work, but they're wasting cognitive energy on tasks that could be automated.
An editor with AI—used thoughtfully—is like a researcher with Google. They can focus on the higher-order thinking because the lower-order work is handled.
But here's the critical part: You have to know what to ask for. You have to review the AI's output. You have to make the final calls.
A bad editor will just let AI do whatever it suggests. A good editor will use AI to handle the routine work while they focus on the thinking.
The difference is the same as the difference between a surgeon who uses an MRI to inform their diagnosis versus a surgeon who just looks at images without medical training.
What This Means for Quality
Here's the uncomfortable truth: In some cases, editors using AI thoughtfully are producing better work, not worse.
Not because the AI is better at editing. It's not. But because editors have more mental space.
Think about a typical editor's day without AI:
- Read paper (30 minutes)
- Read it again slowly, marking issues (45 minutes)
- Write feedback by hand (90 minutes)
- Reread feedback to make sure it's clear (30 minutes)
Total: 3.25 hours per paper.
Now with AI, thoughtfully used:
- Read paper (30 minutes)
- Use AI to extract structure and argument flow (10 minutes)
- Review AI output, add your own observations (15 minutes)
- Write feedback based on clearer thinking (45 minutes)
- Review and refine (15 minutes)
Total: 2 hours per paper.
The editor saved over an hour. But—and this is key—that hour came from the boring structural work, not from the thinking. So the actual feedback is often sharper, more insightful, more helpful.
It's the difference between thinking clearly because you had time to think versus thinking clearly because you eliminated the cognitive overhead.
The Fear, and Why It's Misplaced
I asked Sarah what she was afraid of.
"That someday, my clients will just use AI to edit their own work, and they won't need me."
I understand the fear. It's real. But it's also backwards.
The more people use AI, the more they realize they need human editors. Here's why:
When you use ChatGPT to edit your own paper, you get technically correct output. Grammar is fine. Structure is clearer. But something's missing: critique.
AI will rewrite your sentence to be grammatically correct. But it won't tell you that your argument is actually weak. It won't say "I don't understand what you're trying to say here." It won't push back.
A human editor does all of that. And when you need that—when you have something important to say and you need someone brilliant to help you say it—no AI is going to cut it.
If anything, better AI makes better editors more valuable. Because the gap between "edited by a machine" and "edited by a human who thinks clearly" becomes more obvious.
The Uncomfortable Middle Ground
Here's what keeps me up at night about this, as someone in the editing profession:
Not all editors are going to use AI the right way.
Some will use it as a crutch. Let it do the thinking. Ignore the gaps in logic. Just accept whatever output it produces.
Those editors will become obsolete. They should.
But editors who use AI as a tool? Who use it to see more clearly? Who use it to think faster so they can think deeper?
Those editors will be more valuable than ever.
The difference won't be "AI or human." It will be "thoughtful human using AI versus thoughtless human or AI."
And in that competition, thoughtful humans win every time.
What Sarah Does Now
She still edits papers the old way. She reads them. She thinks about them. She makes judgments.
But now she also has tools that help her think. Tools that extract patterns. Tools that help her see what might otherwise be invisible.
Is it cheating? No. It's the natural evolution of what editing is.
For hundreds of years, editors used whatever technology was available: Pen and paper. Typewriters. Computers. Grammar checkers. Track changes.
AI is just the next tool.
The question isn't whether editors should use it. They will. The question is whether they'll use it thoughtfully.
Because that's what actually matters.
The Real Future
I think the future of editing looks like this:
Editors will spend more time thinking and less time doing busywork. They'll use AI to handle the mechanical parts: Extracting structures, identifying repetitive language, finding consistency issues.
Then they'll use their actual brains—the part that understands why things matter—to decide what needs to change.
The work will be smarter. The feedback will be better. The papers will be stronger.
And the fear that AI will replace editors? It'll disappear. Not because AI isn't powerful. But because what editors actually do—what we've always actually done—isn't replaceable.
We help people think. We help them say what they mean. We make good work better.
No machine is going to stop doing that.
One More Thing
I asked Sarah if she worried about being dishonest. About using AI and not telling her clients.
She was quiet for a moment.
"I used to. But then I realized: I'm not hiding it. I'm just not overstating it. I tell clients exactly what I did and what I'll do. Some care. Some don't. Most just want their paper to be better."
"And is it better?" I asked.
"Yes," she said. "Because I'm not exhausted anymore. I can actually think."
That's the real partnership. Not human versus machine.
But human using machines to be better at being human.
About PM Proofreading: We help researchers, students, and academics prepare their work for publication. Whether it's thesis editing, journal manuscript preparation, or Turnitin AI detection services, we combine careful human judgment with smart tools to ensure your work is publication-ready. Learn more at https://proofreadingmalaysia.com.
Sign in to leave a comment.