The rise of Artificial Intelligence has created a strange problem for writers. Information is everywhere on the internet, which makes it hard for casual readers to differentiate between human research and AI research.
A writer researching a topic can access the same resources as thousands of other writers and AI tools. The reader has access to most of those sources too, but what exactly a writer contribute.
For research articles and guides, information isn't enough of an answer. Therefore, I contacted with my today's guest, Qamar Abbas aka Qamar Lohar and we talked alot on this topic, which I've documented for you below.
Let's start with the biggest question:
If every writer has access to essentially the same information, what makes one article more useful than another?
I think the difference is rarely the information itself, but what makes it different is how writers use it to create a piece.
Let me present an example:
Two writers can research the same topic and find the same ten sources, but they can still produce completely different articles.
One might simply repeat what those sources say. The other might compare them, identify contradictions, explain the context, and figure out what actually matters to the reader.
That's where usefulness comes from. Information is the raw material. The writer's job is to turn that material into understanding.
But if two writers are using the same sources, isn't there a limit to how original their articles can be?
There is, if originality means finding a fact nobody else has discovered. But I don't think that's the only definition of originality. You can take familiar information and connect it in a way that makes something clearer.
Think about a simple example. Ten websites might tell you that a product has five features. Another writer might explain which of those features actually matter for a student, which matter for a professional, and which are basically marketing language.
So, see, the facts haven't changed, but the meaning has been explained well enough for everyone. That's where I think writers have a lot more room to be original than they realize.
So would you say originality is becoming less about information discovery and more about interpretation?
Yes, definitely.
The internet used to reward access to information, and we're drowning in access. The valuable skill is increasingly knowing what to do with that information.
A writer has to ask questions like:
What's important here?
What's missing?
What contradicts what I already know?
Who does this information actually help?
Those questions create a layer that isn't present in the source material itself.
I see writers just opening tabs and scrolling through different magazines, articles, and research pieces and calling it research. Do you think they are doing it right?
Now, there are some questions that need to be answered first. If I'm opening ten tabs without knowing what I'm trying to establish, I'm mostly collecting information.
Real research has a purpose.
Maybe I'm trying to compare two products. Maybe I'm trying to verify a claim. Maybe I'm trying to understand why something is happening.
Once I know the question, I can judge whether a source actually helps answer it.
Otherwise, you can spend hours researching and still have no clearer idea of what your article should say.
Is there a point where more research actually makes an article worse?
Absolutely.
More information can create noise. Writers sometimes feel that if they have researched something for six hours, the article needs to demonstrate those six hours.
But the reader doesn't care how long you researched something. They care whether you helped them. If ten additional sources don't change your conclusion, they might not improve the article.
Sometimes good research means knowing when to stop.
How do you decide what information deserves to make it into the final article?
I ask what job the information is doing.
Does it explain something? Does it support a claim? Does it help the reader compare options? Does it answer an important question?
If the answer is no, I question why it's there. A fact can be interesting and still be unnecessary. That's something writers have to learn because we're naturally attracted to interesting information.
But an article isn't a museum for everything the writer discovered.
What is the biggest test you use to determine whether information is actually useful?
That's what differentiates me from other writers. They force the information into their articles and researches, but when I found out something great enough, I ask myself "so what?"
Why should the reader care?
What does this change?
Does it affect their decision?
Does it explain something they didn't understand?
Does it give them useful context?
If somehow I can't answer these questions, I understand that this information shouldn't be included in the piece.
Can an article be completely accurate and still be useless?
Easily. However, the internet is suffering from this currently.
Accuracy is the foundation, but it's not the entire building you can use to build your piece. You could write an article containing 100 accurate facts and still leave the reader wondering what they're supposed to do with any of them.
Usefulness requires context.
For example, telling someone that a tool has twenty features is less useful than explaining which three features solve the problem they're actually trying to solve.
The question isn't only, “Is this true?”
It's also, “Does this help?”
Here's something writers probably don't like hearing: the reader can search Google themselves. Why should they read your article instead?
Because searching and understanding are different things. Google can give you thousands of results. It doesn't necessarily tell you which five matter.
That's where a good article earns its place, and the reader isn't always asking, “Can someone give me information?” They're asking, “Can someone save me the time of figuring this out myself?”
If an article does that honestly, it has value.
AI can now research, summarize, compare, and even structure an article. What should writers actually be spending their time doing?
That's a really good question. If AI makes information gathering faster, writers should use that extra time to investigate the things that require judgment.
Verify important claims.
Look for contradictions.
Compare primary and secondary sources.
Think about the reader.
Find the missing context.
And most importantly, question the output. I don't think the winning writer will be the person who refuses to use AI. It will be the person who knows where AI should stop and human judgment should begin.
If you had to give writers a simple framework for turning information into something useful, what would it be?
I'd keep it to five steps:
Find. Gather the information.
Verify. Make sure you can trust it.
Filter. Remove what doesn't matter.
Interpret. Figure out what the information actually means.
Apply. Explain how it helps the reader.
Most mediocre content gets stuck somewhere between the first and second steps. It finds information and repeats it. The value comes from the last three.
Here is the final question: If information is becoming a commodity, what exactly is a writer's real product?
I think the real product is understanding. Information tells you what exists. A useful writer helps you understand what matters, why it matters, and what you can do with it.
That's why I don't think writers are becoming irrelevant just because information is easier to access. The job is changing. We're moving from being gatekeepers of information to becoming interpreters of it.
And when everyone has access to the same information, the person who can make sense of it still has something valuable to offer.
