Copyediting

Hold

Techniques

The process of reviewing text for correctness, clarity, and style.

Why it's here

Placed in Hold: 1 article(s) of evidence from 2 source(s), led by research-stage coverage, with 1 in the last 30 days. Confidence 32%.

3Simon Willison·9/17/2026research
Writing with LLMs as Copyeditors
Thomas Ptacek argues that LLMs should be used as copyeditors rather than writing assistants, recommending that writers never use a phrase an LLM directly suggests. He says he uses LLMs for fact-checking, spelling, grammar, and occasional thesaurus help, while avoiding LLM-generated wording in final prose.

Your vote is a weighted signal that nudges the radar — never a direct override.

AssessHoldConfidence32%

Business→ Steady
For BD, copyediting is not yet a strong enough selling point for broad commercial commitments. The sensible positioning is as a limited productivity aid in content workflows, while avoiding promises that LLMs can fully replace a customer’s editing process.
Developers→ Steady
With copyediting demoted from Assess to Hold, developers should not treat it as a ready-made automation layer that can replace existing editing workflows. The practical move is to use LLMs as a late-stage copy review assistant, while keeping a human responsible for checking changes that may distort meaning or break technical terminology.
Product→ Steady
For PMs, copyediting should be treated as a workflow aid for publishing and product communication, not as a core capability worth major investment right now. If LLMs are used for editing, PMs need clear final-approval criteria, especially for materials that affect positioning, feature promises, and customer guidance.
Testers / QA→ Steady
For QA, copyediting is not a new testing area to expand automation into; it is mainly a content-quality support step. Testers should focus on cases where language edits can change meaning, labels, error messages, or user-facing instructions.

as of 9/18/2026

Educated guesses from the trend — you decide.