What is the biggest problem with AI? Recently, three clients approached me with a request to write something for them, emphasizing that they had \u201czero tolerance for AI\u201d in their requested work. They warned me explicitly: if any AI-generated content was detected, they wouldn\u2019t accept it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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\u2019t they want any trace of AI? Why do they insist on getting \u201chuman work\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I think the reason is glaringly obvious: AI can\u2019t compete with humans. Its widespread adoption is driven by the desire of businesses to reduce their expenses \u2014 at the expense of quality. AI is increasingly replacing human labor not because it is good but because it is cheap.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The chatbots that answer the phone when you call a bank are frustrating, to say the least. <\/a>Yet, they are replacing thousands of human employees \u2014 not because they\u2019re effective, but because banks can drastically reduce their expenses by using them. Customers dialing in would prefer not to encounter \u201cany trace of AI\u201d on the other end, but they have no choice but to interact with a robot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So it is with translation, writing, and, likely any other industry affected by AI. Clients consistently insist on not seeing \u201cany trace of AI\u201d in the outputs they get from service providers, yet service providers still use AI because it\u2019s the only way they can compete in the cost-driven market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Some might argue: \u201cJust wait, AI is improving rapidly!\u201d Yet, if that were true, why aren\u2019t clients eagerly requesting, \u201cI beg you, please use ChatGPT in your work! It is getting so good.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019t it be the other way around? Logically, shouldn\u2019t we crave more of something that\u2019s constantly improving?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet, those clients who approached me the other day didn\u2019t say: \u201cYou know, since AI is getting better by the day, why don\u2019t you use it wherever you can in your work and then just polish it.\u201d Instead, they said, \u201cWe have zero tolerance for AI.\u201d Why? Because the client is always looking for quality, not cost reduction. It\u2019s the service provider who focuses on cutting costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Communication derives from \u201ccommunion,\u201d which means participation, connection, oneness. <\/a>When we don\u2019t 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\u2019t want cheap. They want real.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n