Fast, fluent and human: rethinking post-editing

As machines are increasingly used to generate text, human post-editing has emerged as a critical yet underestimated discipline that demands speed, fluency and thoughtful human judgement.

It is almost unbelievable to think that we are now talking about human post-editing. Not long ago, human writing, translating and editing were the only ways content could exist. There was nothing to correct but our own work. Today, that reality has shifted. Humans are no longer sole creators. Instead, we increasingly share the process with machines, stepping in after the fact to guide, correct and refine automated output. This change has transformed not only how content is produced, but also how human effort is valued and experienced. 

Human post-editing, the practice of revising machine-generated text, has become a routine part of professional workflows across translation, content creation and technical communication. For global companies, it enables speed and scale, allowing large volumes of content to be produced quickly. However, it also introduces new dangers that must be addressed carefully and thoughtfully. Among these, cognitive fatigue is one of the most significant and least visible risks. 

One core challenge of post-editing is the deceptive fluency of machine output. Text can appear polished and coherent while still containing errors in meaning, logic or factual accuracy. This often leads to automation bias, where editors trust the machine too readily. When combined with time pressure, this can result in subtle mistakes slipping through and a gradual erosion of nuance, tone and cultural sensitivity. 

Cognitive fatigue plays a central role in this problem. Post-editing requires sustained attention and continuous judgement. Editors must read carefully, evaluate accuracy and decide whether intervention is necessary for every sentence. Unlike writing from scratch, which allows for a sense of flow and creative control, post-editing is reactive and repetitive. It demands constant vigilance, which places a heavy load on concentration and working memory. Over time, mental exhaustion sets in, increasing the likelihood of oversight and reducing overall quality. 

These effects are often intensified by organisational expectations. Post-editors are frequently expected to work faster than traditional writers or translators, based on the assumption that machine output reduces effort. Higher speed, monotonous tasks and limited autonomy can increase strain. This environment not only affects accuracy but also leads to reduced job satisfaction, burnout and long-term deskilling. 

Avoiding cognitive fatigue requires a more human-centred approach. Editors need realistic workloads that acknowledge the mental effort involved. Regular breaks and shorter editing sessions are essential to maintain focus. Task variety helps reduce monotony, while strong domain knowledge lowers cognitive load and supports confident decision making. Training that addresses automation bias and critical evaluation is equally important, as are clear quality guidelines that remove uncertainty about expectations. 

Despite these challenges, human post-editing remains vital in today’s global landscape. Machines can generate text, but they cannot fully understand context, ethics or consequence. Human judgement ensures accuracy, cultural awareness and trust, all of which are essential for global companies communicating across markets and languages. 

At Websters, this belief is put into practice. The focus is firmly on the team and its collaborators, with care placed at the centre of the process. By providing better circumstances, understanding real human needs and committing to fair work ethics, Websters creates the conditions in which content can truly thrive. When people are supported, respected and valued, the results are not only better work, but more responsible and sustainable global communication.