I read this on X. It made me laugh. Thought I’d share: “The best way to find typos is to reread the draft you’ve already circulated.” So true! Feel free to share your own tricks for finding typos :)

I've been reflecting more and more on the disruption AI is causing in our field. And what’s becoming increasingly clear is that this boat cannot be turned back. AI is here to stay. But that doesn’t mean writers must feel compelled to use it, though there are clear benefits for those who do. It does mean, at least in my view, that we have a responsibility to ensure it is used well. As I mentioned in a previous post, I would like to see writers lead this shift rather than stand aside and watch it unfold. But to do that, we need a proper understanding of both the capabilities and the limitations of these machines. While building my new course on AI writing mastery, which I'll tell you more about soon, I found myself returning to a simple idea: prompting is fast becoming a professional skill in its own right. Writers, more than anyone, are well placed to teach it. Across industries, people are already using tools like ChatGPT to draft emails, reports, and strategies. What began as experimentation has settled into daily workflow. Once a tool is embedded at that level within an organisation, it becomes part of the infrastructure. The question, then, is how well it will be used. This is where prompting, treated as a craft, separates itself from casual usage. What matters are literary vision, artistic sensibility, and editorial judgment. That is why writers are uniquely positioned at this moment. The core competencies we have always valued — clarity, structure, tone, proportion — map directly onto effective prompting. When those elements are absent, AI produces something merely competent. When they are present, the output becomes sharper, more purposeful, and often genuinely impressive. We are already seeing early signs of this divide. Two people can use the same tool, yet one consistently produces better work. The difference lies in how they think, frame, and articulate, grounded in writing craft. That gap will only widen. As more of the world’s writing becomes mediated through AI, the ability to guide that process with editorial discernment will become a decisive advantage. Not everyone will develop it, but those who do will shape the standards others follow.

Shani and I explored storytelling for writing reviews, and he thinks the way news writers craft stories applies in all contexts. It's based on one simple question: So what? I love this principle; it forces me to find the real why, which is always more interesting. And it makes writing more fun. While I did talk radio, we asked "Why does this matter?" Listeners have 30 seconds before they change the channel, so I better be compelling. It's the same in writing. Shani also helped me grasp the difference between elegance and evocativeness—he quickly noticed I like lessons in their simplest form, so he broke it down as such: 1. Elegance is rhythm. 2. Evocativeness is drama. He says that in his courses, but hearing these comparisons without the details was a good reminder of what they are, and that it's my duty to extract drama from any story. If I'm not doing that, then it's disservice to readers—and it's less interesting writing without it.

Right now, the comforting story being told about AI is that great writing is finally available to everyone. The reality is less flattering, and more interesting. After experimenting extensively with AI for my book, The Alchemy of Prompting, I've learned that these machines can rarely create quality out of nothing. In fact, their output typically only mirrors the depth, clarity, judgment, and taste of the person guiding it. That's because good writing depends on things a writer must decide, including what matters, what sounds pleasing to the ear, what needs to be emphasised, when a sentence has said enough, and what should be left unstated. Such judgements require an understanding of literary qualities such as structure, tone, rhythm, and intent. That explains why the AI-assisted content of those who lack an understanding of writing craft tends to be so sterile and predictable. And it's why I eventually reached the hard conclusion, while writing my book, that to prompt well, one must first know how to write well. There is, in fact, no other way to guide these machines to produce quality prose, nor to evaluate their output, which is a message, I hope, that will both reassure and inspire writers fearful of AI's impact.

As someone whose contributions to this community I greatly value, @Tom Schaeffer, I'd like to offer you a 45-minute free coaching call at a time of your choosing. Please message me on this platform if you'd like to take this up, my friend, and let me know what you'd like to discuss. Also, as a special gift, I will give a free 30-minute coaching call to the first person to message me privately with the word, "YES" by the end of this weekend. I'll announce the winner in due course :)