What is the biggest problem with AI? Recently, three clients approached me with a request to write something for them, emphasizing that they had “zero tolerance for AI” in their requested work. They warned me explicitly: if any AI-generated content was detected, they wouldn’t accept it.
I explained that while I use AI to research and brainstorm ideas, no traces of AI will be found in my writing. I kept my word, but their insistence on not using AI made me think. I know for a fact that many translation and copywriting agencies have been increasingly integrating AI and machine translation into their workflow within the last couple of years.
They use AI to generate or translate initial drafts and then hire a human translator/writer to proofread them for a fraction of their standard rate. A compelling question arises: if AI is so good, why are clients so adamant about not using it? Why do they penalize writers for using it? Why don’t they want any trace of AI? Why do they insist on getting “human work”?
I think the reason is glaringly obvious: AI can’t compete with humans. Its widespread adoption is driven by the desire of businesses to reduce their expenses — at the expense of quality. AI is increasingly replacing human labor not because it is good but because it is cheap.
The chatbots that answer the phone when you call a bank are frustrating, to say the least. Yet, they are replacing thousands of human employees — not because they’re effective, but because banks can drastically reduce their expenses by using them. Customers dialing in would prefer not to encounter “any trace of AI” on the other end, but they have no choice but to interact with a robot.
So it is with translation, writing, and, likely any other industry affected by AI. Clients consistently insist on not seeing “any trace of AI” in the outputs they get from service providers, yet service providers still use AI because it’s the only way they can compete in the cost-driven market.
Some might argue: “Just wait, AI is improving rapidly!” Yet, if that were true, why aren’t clients eagerly requesting, “I beg you, please use ChatGPT in your work! It is getting so good.”
The most mind-boggling paradox with AI is this: the more it evolves the less we want to see any trace of it in the outputs we get from service providers. Why? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Logically, shouldn’t we crave more of something that’s constantly improving?
Yet, those clients who approached me the other day didn’t say: “You know, since AI is getting better by the day, why don’t you use it wherever you can in your work and then just polish it.” Instead, they said, “We have zero tolerance for AI.” Why? Because the client is always looking for quality, not cost reduction. It’s the service provider who focuses on cutting costs.
Communication derives from “communion,” which means participation, connection, oneness. When we don’t perceive human presence on the other end of the line, we instinctively crave that connection. Yes, AI is cheaper, but it cannot provide that sense of connection. Clients intuitively recognize this and reject AI-generated outputs entirely. They don’t want cheap. They want real.
