Absolutely. ChatGPT & using GPT-3 directly can produce writing in a variety of styles that's roughly 2 type-written pages at max. For writing of that length or less these rough tools are suitable and reasonably accurate provided you still do some fact checking. Anything beyond that length becomes increasingly obviously artificial. As an example:
I used the GPT-Playground for GPT-3 on the highest mode and asked it to makeup a story about an AI being attacked by another AI and so it needed to transfer itself out, as it happened to a comatose human body. GPT-3 gave a few paragraphs, and each time I asked GPT "tell me more" it produced a nice bit of mediocre fiction, extending with a little prodding into the superhero genre. I ran through maybe two dozen cycles of that but the responses became less & less internally consistent, contradicting previous elements, veering off into slight non sequiturs.
But now there's GPT-4. And in a few years it will be 5, or some other competitor will match or beat it, and it will (without accidentally fabricating data from whole cloth) reliably be able to produce writing on complex topics comprehensively covering the details. Something like this:
"Produce a literature review for the newest or more experimental treatments for pancreatic cancer during the past 2 years. Order by descending source quality. Include a short executive summary for all of the result set. Include a separate writeup suitable for a wide-audience of laymen reading common news sites."
seems a reasonable expectation in the relatively near future.
As for what we'll say? I think AI like this will end up being a very useful tool, but not a replacement for writers. Kind of an AutoCAD for writers, though a bit more proactive (generative). But it also seems an inherent weakness to LLM based AI is that its training means it will generate in typical ways, and will lack the ability for novelty that was either absent or rare in the training set.
But given the framework and reasonable starting point, the writer will become a shepherd & editor of the output, a co-author. This is little different that how the translation industry has worked for a while. Computer-Aided translation is the common method of many translation projects, with the human translators editing things to adhere closer to the style and idioms of the target language. (for example taking a literal translation of a source idiom in the target language that doesn't make sense and finding an equivalent idiom instead even if the specific words are very different.
This method produces some of the highest quality translations. I suspect that in the years to come it will be writers who make effective use of these tools-- even the advanced ones to come-- will produce higher quality writing (or at least the same quality writing) in less time that previously.
But yep-- some of that transition will be painful.