Generative artificial intelligence has sparked a great deal of discussion among crisis communicators, public information officers, public affairs professionals, and communication leaders. The concern is understandable. Unlike previous technologies that assisted communication, generative AI appears to perform communication itself. It can draft press releases, summarize reports, create social media content, rewrite text, suggest headlines, and generate ideas in seconds.
For professionals whose careers have been built around communication, the emergence of these tools can feel different from any technological change that came before. Some wonder whether generative AI will diminish the value of their work. Others wonder whether parts of the profession may eventually become automated.
I believe those concerns are worth discussing. I also believe they are largely misplaced.
The reason is simple.
Generative AI may change how communicators perform certain tasks, but it does not change what makes communicators valuable in the first place.
In fact, the rise of generative AI may help clarify something our profession has struggled to articulate for years. The true value of a crisis communicator has never been the ability to produce words. The true value has always been the ability to build understanding, establish trust, provide context, and help people make informed decisions during moments of uncertainty.
That work remains profoundly human.
Addressing the Concern
Before dismissing concerns about generative AI, it is important to recognize why they exist.
Most professions encounter new technologies that automate tasks adjacent to their expertise. Communicators are experiencing something different. Generative AI appears to automate part of the craft itself.
A logistics specialist does not feel personally threatened when software recommends a more efficient delivery route. A meteorologist does not feel replaced when a computer model produces a weather forecast. A GIS analyst understands that mapping software enhances their capabilities rather than eliminating their role.
Communicators, however, see a technology that can generate many of the products they have traditionally produced themselves. The concern is understandable because the connection feels direct.
Yet that concern may rest on a misunderstanding of what communicators actually provide.
If communication were simply the production of documents, concern would be justified. But communication has never been merely the production of documents. The documents are the visible output. The real value lies in the judgment, experience, relationships, ethics, and understanding behind them before they are released.
AI can draft products and save precious time. The PIO will still review, edit, and ensure humanity in the message. The products distributed are still from the PIO. The only difference is that with the time saved, the PIO can now spend more time advising leadership, interacting with the public, assisting survivors, preparing for interviews, and telling the story.
AI Is Already Everywhere
Despite the attention surrounding generative AI, artificial intelligence is hardly new.
Most of us interact with AI dozens of times each day without giving it a second thought. GPS applications recommend routes based on traffic conditions. Streaming services suggest movies and television shows. Email systems filter spam. Smartphones automatically enhance photographs. Voice-to-text software transcribes conversations. Search engines prioritize results. Financial institutions detect potential fraud. Online retailers recommend products. Predictive text attempts to anticipate the next word we intend to type.
We rarely view these technologies as threats. We evaluate them based on whether they help us accomplish a task more effectively.
Society has a long history of accepting technologies that automate calculations, analysis, recommendations, predictions, and repetitive tasks. We do not expect these tools to replace human judgment. We expect them to improve human performance.
Generative AI deserves the same practical evaluation.
Emergency Management Already Embraces AI
Emergency management has never been a profession that rejects technology.
In fact, emergency managers routinely rely on sophisticated tools that automate analysis and generate recommendations. Weather forecasting models help predict storms. Flood modeling estimates potential impacts. Geographic Information Systems help analyze risks and visualize complex information. Resource tracking systems improve situational awareness. Traffic prediction tools assist evacuation planning. Damage assessment technologies help identify affected areas. Logistics optimization systems support the movement of personnel, equipment, and supplies.
None of these technologies diminish the value of emergency managers. If anything, the opposite is true. The more sophisticated the tools become, the more important human judgment becomes.
Technology provides information. Professionals interpret it. Technology offers recommendations. Professionals make decisions. Technology can improve speed, accuracy, and efficiency. It cannot replace accountability.
Communicators should view generative AI through the same lens.
Why Communicators Feel Differently
The difference is largely psychological.
A weather model assists an emergency manager. Generative AI appears to compete with a communicator. The perception is different because the output looks familiar. The mistake is assuming that defines the profession.
An emergency manager’s profession is not the production of plans. A planner’s profession is not the production of binders. A leader’s profession is not the production of decisions.
Likewise, a communicator’s profession is not the production of documents. Documents are artifacts. The profession is something much deeper.
Communicators exist to help organizations understand audiences, navigate uncertainty, explain complex issues, build credibility, establish trust, and support informed decision making. Document production is simply one of the tools used to accomplish those objectives.
The communicator will still review, edit, and control the output. What disappears is repetitive labor and time-consuming administrative work.
Confusing the product with the process, outcome, and profession creates unnecessary fear.
What AI Can Do Well
Generative AI is remarkably capable. Communicators should acknowledge that reality rather than minimize it.
These tools can draft content, summarize information, rewrite material, translate content into multiple languages, generate ideas, analyze large volumes of text, and accelerate repetitive tasks that often consume valuable time.
For communicators who spend hours transforming technical information into multiple products, these capabilities can provide significant value. One example:
The technology will continue to improve. It will become faster, more accurate, and more accessible. Pretending otherwise serves no one.
The question is not whether AI has strengths. The question is whether those strengths represent the entirety of what communicators contribute.
They do not.
What Communicators Uniquely Provide
This is where the conversation becomes most important. Communication during emergencies is not the management of documents. It is the management of trust.
Can generative AI draft a statement? Absolutely.
Can it attend a community meeting and recognize fear in a room?
Can it build credibility with a skeptical journalist over years of professional interaction?
Can it advise a governor, mayor, emergency manager, or agency head that a technically accurate message may still undermine public confidence?
Can it recognize when a community is angry, grieving, confused, or losing trust?
Can it stand before cameras and answer difficult questions when information remains incomplete?
Can it assume responsibility when a communication decision proves wrong?
The answer is no.
Communicators provide judgment. They provide context. They provide ethics. They provide empathy. They provide trust. They build relationships. They offer strategic counsel. They understand audiences. They accept accountability.
Those responsibilities cannot be automated because they depend upon human understanding and human consequence.
The higher the stakes, the more indispensable those capabilities become.
A Historical Perspective
Every generation of communicators has experienced technological disruption.
The profession adapted to radio. It adapted to television. It adapted to desktop publishing. It adapted to email. It adapted to social media. It adapted to smartphones. It adapted to automated media monitoring. It adapted to spellcheck and grammar software.
Each innovation changed how communicators worked.
None eliminated the need for communicators.
In many cases, technology eliminated routine tasks and allowed professionals to focus on higher-value activities. Generative AI represents another chapter in that evolution.
History suggests that communicators who learn to use new tools effectively tend to strengthen their professional value rather than diminish it.
Communicators Should Neither Love Nor Fear AI
Generative AI is neither a miracle nor a menace.
Professionals who embrace every new technology uncritically create unnecessary risk. Professionals who reject every new technology create unnecessary limitations. The responsibility of communicators is not to worship tools or resist them. It is to evaluate them honestly and use them wisely.
That has always been the job.
The future will not belong to artificial intelligence. It will belong to communicators who understand how to combine technological capability with uniquely human judgment, empathy, ethics, accountability, and trust.
Those qualities remain irreplaceable.
And they always will.
Dan Stoneking is the Owner and Principal of Stoneking Strategic Communications, the Author of Crisis Communications and Emergency Management, the Founder and Vice President of the Emergency Management External Affairs Association, the Founder of Message Prism, and an Adjunct Professor in the Communications Department at West Chester University.
