Definitely AI written, though it got the point across and it wasn't terrible to read and it was new information to me so I was glad to read it.
At this point what news site isn't AI written? Except for the few remaining human blogs (which are a delight and a pleasure). Why I detected AI: it said "The honest footnote.." at the end. That's how Claude always ends our long-rambling discussions.
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Atlantic, NPR, BBC, The Verge, The Economist. That's just off the top of my head. Basically none of the reputable papers will touch AI.
(I guess I have to add an "as far as we know" footnote but I'd be truly shocked if The New York Times was secretly using AI.)
The New York Times is publicly using generative AI, but responsibly: "We should tell readers how our work was created and, if we make substantial use of generative A.I., explain how we mitigate risks, such as bias or inaccuracy, with human oversight." https://www.nytco.com/press/principles-for-using-generative-...
The Beeb [0], WSJ [1], Guardian [2], NPR [3], The Economist [4][5], and others are using generative AI as well.
The reality is that everyone is using it, and has been using forms of AI and ML for news writing and copywriting for decades. For example, I remember hearing how Reuters used to use statistical models to auto-generate articles from notes taken by journalists 20 years ago that would then be copy edited.
The reality is that Generative AI is here to stay just like the Internet, but there are ways to use it responsibly (also like the Internet).
The absolutely are copy editing, writing, and translating with AI but keeping a human in the loop to steer, edit, interview sources, and do research.
These were entire divisons that made up the majority of a newsroom. Most members of a newsroom aren't reporters - they're editors, copywriters, translators, graphic designers, narrators, etc.
If the whole point of a good journalist is to provide and synthesize context from sources, validate with experts, and do research then most of those other roles are tangential and can be reduced with human gating.
This is how newsrooms and other similar organizations are approaching and leveraging AI now.
Lots of news sites aren't AI written; or if AI is involved, it's not as blatant as in this article. The 'papers of record' largely remain AI-free. You increasingly have to pay for good journalism.
Comments
Definitely AI written, though it got the point across and it wasn't terrible to read and it was new information to me so I was glad to read it.
At this point what news site isn't AI written? Except for the few remaining human blogs (which are a delight and a pleasure). Why I detected AI: it said "The honest footnote.." at the end. That's how Claude always ends our long-rambling discussions.
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Atlantic, NPR, BBC, The Verge, The Economist. That's just off the top of my head. Basically none of the reputable papers will touch AI.
(I guess I have to add an "as far as we know" footnote but I'd be truly shocked if The New York Times was secretly using AI.)
The New York Times is publicly using generative AI, but responsibly: "We should tell readers how our work was created and, if we make substantial use of generative A.I., explain how we mitigate risks, such as bias or inaccuracy, with human oversight." https://www.nytco.com/press/principles-for-using-generative-...
The Beeb [0], WSJ [1], Guardian [2], NPR [3], The Economist [4][5], and others are using generative AI as well.
The reality is that everyone is using it, and has been using forms of AI and ML for news writing and copywriting for decades. For example, I remember hearing how Reuters used to use statistical models to auto-generate articles from notes taken by journalists 20 years ago that would then be copy edited.
The reality is that Generative AI is here to stay just like the Internet, but there are ways to use it responsibly (also like the Internet).
[0] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/policies/what-were...
[1] - https://www.wsj.com/news/author/wsj-artificialintelligenceto...
[2] - https://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2023/jun/16/...
[3] - https://www.npr.org/about-npr/1205385162/special-section-gen...
[4] - https://myaccount.economist.com/s/article/How-we-handle-AI-g...
[5] - https://www.niemanlab.org/2026/05/the-economist-launches-a-d...
But they are not writing with AI. That's a big difference!
The absolutely are copy editing, writing, and translating with AI but keeping a human in the loop to steer, edit, interview sources, and do research.
These were entire divisons that made up the majority of a newsroom. Most members of a newsroom aren't reporters - they're editors, copywriters, translators, graphic designers, narrators, etc.
If the whole point of a good journalist is to provide and synthesize context from sources, validate with experts, and do research then most of those other roles are tangential and can be reduced with human gating.
This is how newsrooms and other similar organizations are approaching and leveraging AI now.
The mainstream ones that pay journalists, for the most part.
These little internet blogs love AI because they’re usually content farms. They want maximum traffic for minimum effort invested.
Lots of news sites aren't AI written; or if AI is involved, it's not as blatant as in this article. The 'papers of record' largely remain AI-free. You increasingly have to pay for good journalism.