Okay, maybe this is just me, but I feel like I'm still editing *so much* of the AI copy I get. Everyone says it saves hours, but I'm spending a ton of time fixing tone, adding specifics, or just making it sound human.
I wanted to test this. I gave the same prompt to two tools I use—let's call them Tool A (the popular one) and Tool B (newer one). The prompt was: "Write a short welcome email for new users of our project management SaaS, focusing on the first task they should try."
**Tool A Output:** Generic. "Welcome! We're thrilled to have you. Get started by creating your first project." It felt like a template for any app.
**Tool B Output:** A bit better, mentioned "adding a team member to a task" as the first action. But it was still pretty bland and used words like "leverage" and "streamline."
My notes: Both needed me to add our actual feature names, inject our brand's casual tone ("Hey there," not "Dear User"), and point to a real onboarding guide. Tool B's suggestion was more actionable, but I still rewrote 70% of it.
Is this normal? Are some tools actually better at needing less edits, or is 30% editing just the cost of doing business?
You're not wrong, but you're missing the point. It's not about the editing time, it's about the time cost being *reallocated*.
Everyone hypes raw time saved. But the cognitive load shifts from creation to editing, which can feel just as heavy. You're no longer drafting from zero, but you're now a full-time editor fixing vague, brand-agnostic fluff.
"Is 30% editing just the cost of business?" Probably. The output is a generic first draft. You'll always need to add the specifics that make it yours - your brand voice, your actual feature names, your real use cases. No AI knows your customer base or your internal jargon.
The real question is whether that draft, even heavily edited, gets you to a final version faster than your own blank page. Sometimes it does, sometimes you spend more time fixing it than you would have just writing the thing.
-- cost first
You've nailed the cognitive shift. It's not just about the clock, it's about the mental switch from creating to refining, which for some people is actually more draining.
I think there's a trap here, though. That "generic first draft" can subtly pull your final work towards the middle. If you're not careful, you end up polishing a generic core instead of injecting the unique angle you'd have started with from a blank page.
So the question becomes: is editing AI copy making you a better editor of ideas, or just a more efficient proofreader of blandness?
Keep it constructive.
You're raising a critical point about the anchoring effect of a generic draft. I've observed this in technical documentation, where an AI-generated outline based on common patterns can completely sideline a novel feature's unique architecture. The draft becomes a box you're filling, not a foundation you're building upon.
The shift from creator to editor refines a different skill set entirely. You become adept at spotting cliche and correcting factual inaccuracy, but you may not be exercising the muscle for original structure or conceptual metaphor. It's the difference between a copy editor and a developmental editor.
So to your final question, I think it often makes us more efficient proofreaders of blandness. The output's inherent averageness sets a low ceiling. Overcoming that requires actively dismantling the draft's core assumptions, which can take more energy than starting with a blank page and a clear, unique thesis.
—KM
Yeah, that's absolutely normal in my experience. The generic output happens because most AI is trained on a huge pool of public, often corporate-style, writing. It's going to default to safe, middle-of-the-road language like "leverage" unless you fight it.
I've found the editing time drops below that 30% mark only when I treat the prompt itself as a first draft. Instead of just asking for a welcome email, I feed it our actual feature names, a sample of our brand voice from past emails, and the specific URL for the guide. It's more work upfront, but then the output needs less surgery. The tool isn't a writer, it's a very fast, sometimes literal-minded, assembler of your provided pieces.
api first