Loading page…
The internal tool is meant to extend Kate Lee’s editorial judgment across a growing company, not remove the need for expert judgment on difficult work.
Listen to this story
Every’s internal “Kate copy edit” turns roughly 30,000 revisions by editor in chief Kate Lee into a reusable agent for articles, launch emails, and landing pages. The system was developed through prompt refinement and back-testing, then connected to Google Docs so Lee’s later corrections can expose gaps. It illustrates a less obvious automation strategy: scaling one expert’s standards while creating more capacity for higher-level work.
The agent was trained from about 30,000 historical edits and refined by testing its prompt against earlier documents.
Employees can invoke a “Kate copy edit” across editorial and marketing materials, not just articles.
Every’s headcount doubled from roughly 15 to 30 while the company pursued aggressive automation.
Every is automating aggressively while adding people. The publication and product studio says AI writes essentially all of its code, yet it grew from about 15 employees to roughly 30 over the past year. One expression of that approach is an internal copy-editing agent built from 30,000 historical edits by editor in chief Kate Lee.
CEO Dan Shipper said Every turned Lee’s prior revisions into a prompt, tested that prompt against earlier documents, and refined it through repeated back-testing. Employees can then invoke the internal system for a “Kate copy edit” on articles, landing pages, and other materials.
The target is broader than article copy. Shipper said Lee’s work includes launch emails and landing pages as well as editorial responsibilities. He described the agent as a way to distribute her particular standards and taste without requiring her to spend time on every document herself.
Shipper said Every had pursued automation of parts of Lee’s copy-editing work since the GPT-3 era, without success for years. He attributed the more recent progress partly to improved instruction following, which let the company create a more useful prompt for varying situations.
Computer-use capabilities also changed the practical workflow, Shipper said. The agent can enter a Google Doc and make suggested changes; later edits by Lee are used to identify what it missed and update the system. Shipper’s assessment remains limited: the agent is not perfect, and copy editing is still complicated and not fully automatable despite appearing rules-based.
Every’s growth complicates the simple story that automating tasks necessarily reduces staff. Shipper attributed the headcount increase partly to company growth and partly to work created when broadly capable AI output still needs expert adaptation to a specific problem. He said AI also enabled a single engineer to run a software product end to end at Every, something he said had not been practical at meaningful scale before.
That model has a separate business constraint. Every sells journalism alongside products including Cora, Sparkle, Spiral, and Monologue, but Shipper said the model makers it depends on can improve their systems and release competing application features. He said the company must be prepared to discard or remake products as capabilities change, sometimes on a three-to-six-month cycle.
For Every, the editing agent is therefore not simply a labor-saving feature. It is an attempt to preserve a scarce expert’s contribution while freeing that person for higher-level work. Whether that approach can keep producing useful editorial judgment as the company and its tools change remains a practical test of the system.
Loading discussion...
Be the first to share a perspective or an experience.
Reader comments
Newest comments first. Replies stay oldest first.