The Age of De-Skilling: Who do you want to be?

Chad S. White on November 7, 2025

From the gramophone to compass to the computer, advancements in technology routinely cause people to abandon skills, says The Atlantic’s Kwame Anthony Appiah in The Age of De-Skilling (link to gift article). 

“It’s a reassuring pattern—something let go, something else acquired,” he says. “But some gains come with deeper costs. They unsettle not only what people can do but also who they feel themselves to be.”

Of course, AI is the next big advancement that’s causing the current cycle of de-skilling. The question is: What skills will people be giving up? And how will that impact their identity?

In these cycles, people have several paths available to them:

1. The cyborg

They can use the technology collaboratively, keeping their skills while gaining speed, precision, or other benefits from the technology.

2. The monitor

They watch over the technology as it does their former job, stepping in to assist when the technology falters. In this role, the person invariably loses skill and their former identity.

It’s around these two choices that most of the conversation about AI has revolved. Will you be the “human in the loop” that stays actively engaged in your craft? Or will you be the “human on the loop” that merely oversees and signs off on the work the technology does?

But I think there are two other options.

3. The innovator

Freed from some aspects of their profession or task, they specialize in one or more of the remaining aspects. In the age of AI, this means focusing on very niche subject areas where there’s relatively little domain knowledge—or, more commonly, being on the forefront of new discoveries. The innovator doesn’t compete with the new technology. Instead, they expand knowledge or pioneer new methods, which over time improve the new technology or fuel the next technology innovation. 

4. The artisan

Some people will continue doing things the old way. They will maintain their skills and identity, but compete directly with the new technology. In some cases, a critical mass of consumers will appreciate this human- or hand-crafted product or service, making it a viable choice. In other cases, there won’t be a viable market.

I recognize that not every person in every instance will have full discretion over which of these paths they take as AI spreads across industries. However, in my day job, I’m going to lean into being a cyborg and specialist, as that makes me the most valuable as a digital marketer. And in my night job as a novelist, I’m going to lean into being an artisan, as that best aligns with my values as a novelist.

The final paragraph of The Age of De-Skilling by Kwame Anthony Appiah in The Atlantic

To receive future posts for free or to become a Patron and support my dystopian sci-fi novel and get special thank-you goodies upon its publication…

Subscribe on Substack →

Confession: I love em-dashes

Chad S. White on August 4, 2025

Because generative AI engines like ChatGPT use them a lot, some writers are starting to reconsider their use of em-dashes (which are so named because they’re the width of a capital M). I get it. No one wants to be accused of using genAI when they didn’t. 

But the fact that genAI produces copy with a healthy number of em-dashes only means that em-dashes are well-represented in their training material, and are therefore a staple of good writing. Cutting the versatile em-dash from your writing will only leave it worse off.

For what it’s worth, I use them all the time in my business writing. Heck, there are five in my latest article for CMSWire. And in the draft of book 1 of my sci-fi trilogy, I have more than 600 em-dashes. That comes out to one about every 150 words on average.

That may sound like a lot, but I use them …

  1. When a character’s speech is interrupted—by another character, a door slamming, or an explosion
  2. When a character stutters when they’re flustered (e.g., “I— I think”)
  3. For labored speech, like when they’re out of breath
  4. When a character’s thoughts are labored and fractured, like before they pass out
  5. To offset a clause more emphatically than a comma can
  6. For asides in speech, instead of using parentheses
  7. Before a list, instead of using colon

Beyond that, they’re just a fantastic tool for controlling the rhythm of a sentence. So, no matter what genAI spits out, I’m going to keep using em-dashes. And for the record, I’m going to keep using periods and commas, too, even though those are also suspiciously common in genAI copy.

From Issue 192 of Total Annarchy, a wonderful newsletter by Ann Handley

To receive future posts or to become a Patron and support my dystopian sci-fi novel and get special thank-you goodies upon its publication, subscribe on Substack →

Where to draw the line with genAI

Chad S. White on August 2, 2025

I’m a member of the group that’s most bullish on generative AI and the group that’s the least. That’s because I’m a marketing strategist at a tech company by day and an aspiring novelist by night. The latest survey from Substack illustrates the extreme divide between these two groups.

Wearing both of these hats, here are major issues I see:

  1. Anything created substantially using genAI can’t be copyrighted. (And if governments are smart, that will never change.) This is why agents and publishers want to know if you’ve used AI in your book, because it could potentially zero out the commercial value of your book. AI-generated images for covers are similarly problematic.
  2. Using genAI opens you up to plagiarism lawsuits until the law gets settled here, which could take years. This is why some of our Fortune 1000 clients write into our agency service contacts that we can’t use genAI for any of the work we do for them. They don’t want the legal risk since they’re big legal targets already. The Big Five publishers surely feel the same way.

Of course, many writers feel genAI is morally wrong because it’s essentially a plagiarism engine. And their minds won’t change even if the courts rule that genAI’s use of copyrighted material is transformative (which is highly likely to happen).

But putting those feelings aside for a moment, let’s recognize that some genAI uses don’t run afoul of those two issues above because they’re noncommercial. For example, turning your human-authored book summary into social media posts to promote your book. Or creating AI-images of your protagonists based on the descriptions in your book to use on social. Or taking the short author bio you wrote for your jacket copy, adding a bunch of details, and having genAI draft a long bio for your website.

Let’s also acknowledge that genAI is a huge boon for people with dyslexia and ADHD, as well as non-native English speakers.

All of that said, I’ve made the personal decision not to use genAI in any way for the writing of my novels, including AI-infused editing tools like Grammarly. At the end of this very long road, for better or worse, I want to be able to take full credit (along with my editors and beta readers) for everything in my novels, including the human imperfections.

To receive future posts or to become a Patron and support my dystopian sci-fi novel and get special thank-you goodies upon its publication, subscribe on Substack →