Is This the End of AI Shame?

In a world where a human's hand can still be discerned in a written piece, The Wall Street Journal has taken a bold step into the uncharted territory of AI-generated op-eds. This week, billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller published an editorial in the Journal that, according to the AI-detection tool Pangram, was entirely generated by a machine. This revelation has sparked a debate about the ethics of AI writing and whether the practice has finally entered its post-shame era.

Initially, those accused of passing off AI writing as their own usually either apologized or denied it. However, Druckenmiller took a different approach. In a statement to NOTUS, he admitted to using AI, stating that he now uses AI for writing just as he would use a calculator for math problems. In response, The Wall Street Journal's editorial-page editor, Paul Gigot, defended the practice, stating that AI is a fact of modern life and that the Journal's opinion staffers must still draft their own columns and editorials.

However, Gigot later clarified that the Journal does not intend to police AI use by outside contributors, suggesting that many contributors, especially prominent politicians or CEOs, employ speechwriters or hire a writing shop.

While Druckenmiller's frankness about using AI may seem refreshing in a world where many writers are stuck in denial, it is questionable whether his disclosure is adequate. The Journal's op-ed appears to lack any indication that AI was used in its creation, leading to calls for transparency from critics. Studies have found that readers sometimes prefer chatbot's prose or short stories to human-written pieces, but they can be sour on them when informed about the AI's involvement.

The Journal's decision to publish an AI-generated op-ed without disclosing this information raises concerns about the erosion of trust in the technology.