All I was saying is that your framing was callous and also likely terribly inaccurate. It assumes that management always assesses layoffs and technology adoption rationally and objectively based on merits without influence by hype, advertising, or other external forces. People are frequently laid off randomly at large companies. Layoffs at big companies often don't involve someone saying "get rid of these specific 20 copy writers because their copy is worse than what an AI produces". They will ignore performance of individuals completely and instead reduce headcount randomly across a cost center. That doesn't mean that every person who was let go was "producing mediocrity".

> That's why I'm saying: if you, as a writer, bring no taste because you're the equivalent of a code money, what are you expecting?

You're assuming "Writer laid of must be because org did not find them to be a very good writer".

The issue,

#1, unless you're yourself an editor or a former writer, you really can't distinguish between moderate and excellent writing. (I know someone personally who's very experienced, and I struggled while actively trying to make out the tells in the quality of writing. The difference between good and great writing can be very subtle.)

Bigger issue #2 is, the board DGAF about any of this.

If they can get a sloppy write up for free with their chatgpt subscription instead of a fair human price, who cares if the quality and brand value drops and the company goes bankrupt? That's an issue 5 years from now, good thing the CEO's already retired by then, right?