I'm a full time copywriter for SaaS companies and I'm actually finding the opposite. My experience is people are having AI write stuff then trying to massage it themselves. When they can't get it to a point where they're happy with it they eventually just throw up their hands and hire me for pre-AI project scopes with 2025 rates. Not saying that's the experience everywhere, but AI has been much less problematic for me than most of the narratives I've seen online (knock on wood)
A problem I have with Brian Merchant's reporting on this is that he put out a call for stories from people who have lost their jobs to AI and so that's what he got.
What's missing is a clear indication of the size of this problems. Are there a small number of copywriters who have been affected in this way or is it endemic to the industry as a whole?
I'd love to see larger scale data on this. As far as I can tell (from a quick ChatGPT search session) freelance copywriting jobs are difficult to track because there
isn't a single US labor statistic that covers that category.
> he put out a call for stories from people who have lost their jobs to AI
This seems like an inherently terrible way to look for a story to report. Not only are you unlikely to know if you didn't find work because an AI successfully replaced you, but it's likely to attract the most bitter people in the industry looking for someone to blame.
And, btw, I hate how steeply online content has obviously crashed in quality. It's very obvious that AI has destroyed most of what passed as "reporting" or even just "listicles". But there are better ways to measure this than approaching this from a labor perspective, especially as these jobs likely aren't coming back from private equity slash-and-burning the industry.
It's such a difficult vertical to track because there isn't always a clear start and end condition. Drafts get passed around, edited, revised, and cleared by different teams, sometimes with a mixture of writing from in-house, freelancers, external agencies, and AI. Lots of people I talk to can't believe the number of projects that get approved and paid for that never end up going live simply because of red tape.
I think this might be what many people think. Which is what brings upon problems of self-worth. However, "best" and "high skill" aren't always the reason why companies value work and workers, i.e. the economy is not a meritocracy.
The problem isn't getting rid if people's jobs. Jobs are not inherently valuable. The problem is we have not built a society or economy where everyone can thrive regardless of their employment.
That's like saying "the problem isn't the unmaintainable cost of healthcare, it's that we haven't eliminated all diseases and aging". I.e. the latter is a long way off, and might not ever be 100% feasible, so it's horrifying and inhumane to imply we should allow the suffering caused by the former in the meantime.
I think it's a stretch to call having to make a living in a career other than your preferred job "suffering". Even before AI, there were surely millions of people who grew up wanting to be an artist, or an astronaut, or an architect, or any number of things that they never had the skills or the work ethic or the resources to achieve. I'm sure before cars there were people who loved maintaining stables of horses and carriages, and lamented the decline of the stable master profession. It's no different now.
No we shouldn't allow the suffering. Nor should we force people to work bullshit jobs. That's my point. Treating humans with dignity isn't even that hard but people need to believe it's important or it won't happen
So what? Mandate that AI can’t be used to do jobs? That will increase the cost of everything (relative to the world where we are allowed to use AI) and that cost will be bore by everyone in society.
Compare with something like unemployment benefits. The cost of benefits can be covered by taxes (which unlike the example above) can be progressively targeted and redistribute wealth to those most in need.
A social safety net is progressive, feasible (countries all around the world have them), and does not hinder technological or economic progress. What are the alternatives?
In addition, abrupt changes in industry landscape are problematic.
The expectation for everyone to retrain and do something else is not necessarily reasonable, especially in an environment that does not have much of a social support system for education, training, and extended periods away from the workforce.
And we all know that the market doesn't magically make replacement jobs better or the same as the previous ones.
I have ideas, lots of ideas, most of them bad. This hobby had me compare how people (including myself) predicted what a new technology would bring in the future with what actually happened. With few exceptions we get it wrong. Most of the time something terrible will happen and something terrible will be predicted but they are practically never the same thing.
>The problem is we have not built a society or economy where everyone can thrive regardless of their employment.
The way I'd read this sentiment is that the arrangement of society is ultimately arbitrary and if we could only choose a different system we could by truly free. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly or not. That said, my impression is that people will not really be able to get away from something like that looks like traditional jobs. The core traits seem to be group dynamics, hierarchical competition, status-attainment -- all where resources are not infinite nor are opportunities for status.
We've already had sufficient technological advances such that people would not need to do much labor, but functionally speaking I just don't think people can organize themselves into _any_ possible arrangement. I think the potential arrangements that could exist are limited by nature.
Resources are only finite because people with power want it to be that way. We are at a level of technological development where we absolutely could go and get (practically) limitless resources from the asteroid belt.
We could have had (practically) limitless fusion energy if we had chosen to invest the money earlier. We could have had the fantastically cheap solar we have today decades ago. We could have had non-polluting electric public transit across the country instead of private cars.
The people with the power and hoarded resources to do so have consistently made decisions to preserve that status quo at any cost. Our leaders chose to abandon space, to continue burning fossil fuels, to dismantle and demonize public transit.
We could choose these things. It is absolutely within our capabilities as a species. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either trying to manipulate you or simply lack the imagination. We could moonshot our way to post-scarcity in a decade or two. It's just that those with the power to make those choices have vast incentive not to.
I'd go one step further: The problem is that we cannot build a fair and equitable socioeconomic capitalistic-driven society. Rather than complain about capitalism, I've written a near-future hard sci-fi novel that proposes and explores creating a society that doesn't rely on monetary capital to operate. My theory, which guides the plot, is that we have to look at the seeds of capitalism, namely food, and figure out how to eliminate the exchange of currency for it.
I posit that until this point in history there has never been a time where technology would allow us to grow and distribute food for free (in terms of both financial cost and labour of time). With the rise and convergence of AI, robotics, low-cost renewable energy, advances in optimal light-biomass conversion, diminishing costs on vertical farms, and self-driving vehicles, we have within our reach a way to produce food at essentially no cost.
Think through what would happen to society and our economy if food was free for anyone, anywhere. Think about the meaning of work.
If these ideas intrigue you, beta are readers wanted, see my profile for contact.
The only thing that seems hopeful is that people are finally talking about it at mass scale.
I promise you as an anarchist agitator that is unbelievably new just even in the last couple years and precisely what usually happens prior to actual direct action.
My fellow anarchists hate the fact that Donald Trump did more for anarchist-socialist praxis than every other socialist writer in history.
But I’m sure somebody will blow this off as “it’s only three examples and is not really representative”
But if it is representative…
“then it’s not as bad as other automation waves”
or if it is as bad as other automation waves…
“well there’s nothing you can do about it”
Anecdotally I was in an Uber yesterday on the way to a major Metropolitan airport and we passed a Waymo. I asked the Uber driver how they felt about Waymo and Uber collaborating and if he felt like it was a threat to his job.
His answer was basically “yes it is but there’s nothing anybody can do about it you can’t stop technology it’s just part of life.”
If that’s how people who are being replaced feel about it, while still continuing to do the things necessary to train the systems, then there will be assuredly no human future (at least not one that isn’t either subsistence or fully machine integrated) because the people being replaced don’t feel like they have the capacity to stand up to it.
The world changes and jobs cease to exist. Historically there hasn't been a great deal of support for those who lose their jobs to change.
While there are issues that are AI specific, I don't feel as if this is one of them. This happens for many reasons, of which AI is just one. In turn, I think this means that the way to address the problem of job loss should not be AI soecific.
If it turns out that AI does not create more jobs than are lost; that will be a new thing. I think that can happen, but on a longer timeframe.
When most jobs can be done by AI, we will need a societal change to deal with that. That will be where people need a livelihood, not necessarily a job. I have read pieces nearly a hundred years old saying this, there are almost certainly much earlier writings that identify this needs to be addressed.
There will undoubtedly be a few individuals that will seek to accumulate wealth and power who aim to just not employ humans. I don't think that can happen on a systemic scale because it would be too unstable.
Two of the things that supports wealth inequality is 1) people do not want to risk what they currently have, and 2) they are too busy surviving to do anything about it.
A world where people lose their jobs and have no support results in a populace with nothing to lose and time to act. That state would not last long.
There will always be value in doing work that other people don't want to do themselves or that requires expertise and skill that isn't conveyed all that well through books or pictures. The economy used to be full of stable masters for horses and carriages, and manual typists, and street lamp lighters, and television repairmen, and any number of jobs that don't exist anymore.
I can't help but wonder if this is a bit like a few years ago when comedians were complaining that nobody was laughing at their jokes anymore. They realized that it was a mandate to figure out how to be funny again, because what was considered "funny" had changed.
In this instance, and probably most instances of art/craft, copywriters need to figure out what is creative again, because what is considered "creative" has changed.
I could also see this being the journey that AI customer support took, where all staff were laid off and customers were punted to an AI agent, but then the shortcomings of AI were realized and the humans were reintroduced (albeit to a lesser degree). I suspect the pendulum will swing back to AI as the memory problems are resolved though.
The problem is that most copywriting is not and shouldn't be very creative. Often times it's just outsiders who know how to make public communication clear.
The sad part is that the managers deciding on using AI are the ones who rarely understand what is good public communication - that's why they were hiring someone to help them with it.
With AI they get some text that seems legit but the whole process of figuring out why&how is simply skipped. It might sometimes work but it's doubtful it builds knowledge in the organisation.
Because I tried using LLMs to write a compelling copy for a landing page and it’s just not that great. I tried a lot. A real copywriter will do a lot of research about your ICP and write targeted copy.
I have more of a problem with poor governance than strong automation. The economy should provide us all food and shelter, beyond that, do what you love.
A couple friends have been laid off in fields similar, where AI is excelling and reducing demand for labor significantly, and it seems they’re mostly unaware and saying/thinking it’s the job market that is tough / time of year and maybe it will improve in 2026 as budgets are executed. I’ve not had the heart to tell them they will likely need to change careers. And that’s if they can, in my opinion the faster they realize that the better off they will be. I don’t think the laypersons familiarity with AI right now understand that this is full out reductive in labor and there is no substitute.
> I’ve not had the heart to tell them they will likely need to change careers ... in my opinion the faster they realize that the better off they will be.
I understand your reluctance. Yet I think, if you believe this, you should have that hard conversation sooner rather than later.
I understand that but I don’t feel they’re ready to hear what I have to say on it. In a way, I’m waiting for the right time. I have to preserve our relationship and try to be optimistic for them as a supportive friend for the time being.
When I feel deeply cynical about the quality of our modern life, I imagine that one of the reasons it's so easy for us to "settle" for the "good enough" output of AI in certain areas, especially around corporate copywriting, art, and yes perhaps even code is that these areas already fundamentally suck.
I believe that good skillful writing, drawing, or coding, by a human who actually understands and believes in what they're doing can really elevate the merely "good" to excellent.
However, when I think about the reality of most corporate output, we're not talking about "good" as a baseline level that we are trying to elevate. We're usually talking about "just barely not crap" in the best case, to straight up garbage in maybe a more common case.
Everyone understands this, from the consumer to the "artist" (perhaps programmer), to the manager, to the business owner. And this is why using AI slop is so easy to embrace in so many areas. The human touch was previously being used in barely successful attempts to put a coat of paint over some obvious turds. They were barely succeeding anyways, the crap stunk through. May as well let AI pretend to try, and we'll keep trying until the wheels finally fall off.
Readit News
A problem I have with Brian Merchant's reporting on this is that he put out a call for stories from people who have lost their jobs to AI and so that's what he got.
What's missing is a clear indication of the size of this problems. Are there a small number of copywriters who have been affected in this way or is it endemic to the industry as a whole?
I'd love to see larger scale data on this. As far as I can tell (from a quick ChatGPT search session) freelance copywriting jobs are difficult to track because there isn't a single US labor statistic that covers that category.
This seems like an inherently terrible way to look for a story to report. Not only are you unlikely to know if you didn't find work because an AI successfully replaced you, but it's likely to attract the most bitter people in the industry looking for someone to blame.
And, btw, I hate how steeply online content has obviously crashed in quality. It's very obvious that AI has destroyed most of what passed as "reporting" or even just "listicles". But there are better ways to measure this than approaching this from a labor perspective, especially as these jobs likely aren't coming back from private equity slash-and-burning the industry.
But we’re also seeing a lot of schlock…
Compare with something like unemployment benefits. The cost of benefits can be covered by taxes (which unlike the example above) can be progressively targeted and redistribute wealth to those most in need.
A social safety net is progressive, feasible (countries all around the world have them), and does not hinder technological or economic progress. What are the alternatives?
The expectation for everyone to retrain and do something else is not necessarily reasonable, especially in an environment that does not have much of a social support system for education, training, and extended periods away from the workforce.
And we all know that the market doesn't magically make replacement jobs better or the same as the previous ones.
The way I'd read this sentiment is that the arrangement of society is ultimately arbitrary and if we could only choose a different system we could by truly free. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly or not. That said, my impression is that people will not really be able to get away from something like that looks like traditional jobs. The core traits seem to be group dynamics, hierarchical competition, status-attainment -- all where resources are not infinite nor are opportunities for status.
We've already had sufficient technological advances such that people would not need to do much labor, but functionally speaking I just don't think people can organize themselves into _any_ possible arrangement. I think the potential arrangements that could exist are limited by nature.
We could have had (practically) limitless fusion energy if we had chosen to invest the money earlier. We could have had the fantastically cheap solar we have today decades ago. We could have had non-polluting electric public transit across the country instead of private cars.
The people with the power and hoarded resources to do so have consistently made decisions to preserve that status quo at any cost. Our leaders chose to abandon space, to continue burning fossil fuels, to dismantle and demonize public transit.
We could choose these things. It is absolutely within our capabilities as a species. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either trying to manipulate you or simply lack the imagination. We could moonshot our way to post-scarcity in a decade or two. It's just that those with the power to make those choices have vast incentive not to.
I posit that until this point in history there has never been a time where technology would allow us to grow and distribute food for free (in terms of both financial cost and labour of time). With the rise and convergence of AI, robotics, low-cost renewable energy, advances in optimal light-biomass conversion, diminishing costs on vertical farms, and self-driving vehicles, we have within our reach a way to produce food at essentially no cost.
Think through what would happen to society and our economy if food was free for anyone, anywhere. Think about the meaning of work.
If these ideas intrigue you, beta are readers wanted, see my profile for contact.
I promise you as an anarchist agitator that is unbelievably new just even in the last couple years and precisely what usually happens prior to actual direct action.
My fellow anarchists hate the fact that Donald Trump did more for anarchist-socialist praxis than every other socialist writer in history.
https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/i-was-forced-to-use-ai-u...
I bookmarked the series which looks exactly like what everyone in tech is saying ISN’T happening:
https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/s/ai-killed-my-job
But I’m sure somebody will blow this off as “it’s only three examples and is not really representative”
But if it is representative…
“then it’s not as bad as other automation waves”
or if it is as bad as other automation waves…
“well there’s nothing you can do about it”
Anecdotally I was in an Uber yesterday on the way to a major Metropolitan airport and we passed a Waymo. I asked the Uber driver how they felt about Waymo and Uber collaborating and if he felt like it was a threat to his job.
His answer was basically “yes it is but there’s nothing anybody can do about it you can’t stop technology it’s just part of life.”
If that’s how people who are being replaced feel about it, while still continuing to do the things necessary to train the systems, then there will be assuredly no human future (at least not one that isn’t either subsistence or fully machine integrated) because the people being replaced don’t feel like they have the capacity to stand up to it.
While there are issues that are AI specific, I don't feel as if this is one of them. This happens for many reasons, of which AI is just one. In turn, I think this means that the way to address the problem of job loss should not be AI soecific.
If it turns out that AI does not create more jobs than are lost; that will be a new thing. I think that can happen, but on a longer timeframe.
When most jobs can be done by AI, we will need a societal change to deal with that. That will be where people need a livelihood, not necessarily a job. I have read pieces nearly a hundred years old saying this, there are almost certainly much earlier writings that identify this needs to be addressed.
There will undoubtedly be a few individuals that will seek to accumulate wealth and power who aim to just not employ humans. I don't think that can happen on a systemic scale because it would be too unstable.
Two of the things that supports wealth inequality is 1) people do not want to risk what they currently have, and 2) they are too busy surviving to do anything about it.
A world where people lose their jobs and have no support results in a populace with nothing to lose and time to act. That state would not last long.
I'm pretty sure we'll survive.
In this instance, and probably most instances of art/craft, copywriters need to figure out what is creative again, because what is considered "creative" has changed.
I could also see this being the journey that AI customer support took, where all staff were laid off and customers were punted to an AI agent, but then the shortcomings of AI were realized and the humans were reintroduced (albeit to a lesser degree). I suspect the pendulum will swing back to AI as the memory problems are resolved though.
The sad part is that the managers deciding on using AI are the ones who rarely understand what is good public communication - that's why they were hiring someone to help them with it.
With AI they get some text that seems legit but the whole process of figuring out why&how is simply skipped. It might sometimes work but it's doubtful it builds knowledge in the organisation.
I'd argue this requires a great deal of creativity. It's how we got "1,000 songs in your pocket."
The problem is us, on the consumer side. We are in an era of content hyperinflation. That was true before AI became ubiquitous
Also firing people for a minimal bonus is always a lot of people are going to go for
Once AI can write proper compelling converting copy then I’ll change my mind.
I understand your reluctance. Yet I think, if you believe this, you should have that hard conversation sooner rather than later.
I believe that good skillful writing, drawing, or coding, by a human who actually understands and believes in what they're doing can really elevate the merely "good" to excellent.
However, when I think about the reality of most corporate output, we're not talking about "good" as a baseline level that we are trying to elevate. We're usually talking about "just barely not crap" in the best case, to straight up garbage in maybe a more common case.
Everyone understands this, from the consumer to the "artist" (perhaps programmer), to the manager, to the business owner. And this is why using AI slop is so easy to embrace in so many areas. The human touch was previously being used in barely successful attempts to put a coat of paint over some obvious turds. They were barely succeeding anyways, the crap stunk through. May as well let AI pretend to try, and we'll keep trying until the wheels finally fall off.