I'm not too confident in the AI detection tools myself. They're just as flawed as the rest of it. I used to have a boss who "wrote like an AI" years before Generative AI took off, we just didn't know to describe it back then.

It's up to editors to discern whether an op-ed is good for publication. Often times, it's based on the reputation and credentials of the author. A well credentialed author can use AI as a reference and still create a piece that has their voice, and gets their point across, even if some analysis bot somewhere thinks it finds a familiar pattern.

I feel like one problem is that AI trained on real people. So I find it hard to believe that real people will never sound like AI. I think these sorts of analyzing tools can be useful, but shouldn’t be the sole source of evidence that something is generated.

Free post for the NYTPitchbox app: Do AI Systems Have Opinions? Our Editorial Board Says Yes

Bit late to the party with this assessment. AI articles have been out in the wild on major sites for years already.

Semafor has come out of no where and became one of the best news organizations as of late. They even seperate reporting from analysis within the same article.

AI detector

Yeah i am not even gonna open the article if the summary mentions that; AI detectors are bullshit

Do we know how accurate Pangram really is?

Considering the absolute horseshit that has populated the WSJ, WT, and the NYT opinion columns over the last decade (hell, even longer), I can’t imagine how AI could possibly have made things worse… they’ve all been fucking dumpster fires for a long time.

In fact, how dare they blame AI for all of that fucking dumpster fire bullshit. That was all the work of shitty shitty humans doing that very much on purpose. there is no going back and trying to rewrite history and blaming that on “oopsy-daisy AI“. You assholes were assholes, and you fucking knew it. Own your assholery, you souless motherfuckers.

Gigot said in a statement that AI is “a fact of modern life,” and that what matters is “whether what we publish from contributors reflects an author’s original argument, and if the author has the standing and credibility to make it.”

This Gigot jackass will have ZERO “standing and credibility” left if he continues to use AI as a crutch, especially if he insists on using it in situations where AI is specifically prohibited.

If I was the editor, I’d blacklist this arrogant prick.