WASHINGTON, 04 Sept. - (ANA) - Semafor’s research into the use of AI by guest contributors to The New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal struck a nerve. Some people criticized us for turning the use of AI into a stigma. Others criticized us for not doing enough naming and shaming.

 

We analyzed every guest column from those three publications over the past month so we could get a sense of the big picture, and all three are regularly publishing content that was generated by AI. Two of them — the NYT and WaPo — strictly prohibit it.

 

The numbers clearly show AI is now an established writing tool. The stigma is vanishing.

 

This doesn’t mark the end of good writing; rather, it should raise the bar. People can identify cheesy, AI-generated slop, just like they can with poor grammar or sentence structures written by people, and there’s nothing wrong with calling it out. But if someone spends time to write something thoughtful and valuable using AI and puts their name to it, we should judge the ideas it puts forth on their own.

 

If teachers and professors want to measure their students’ ability to write without assistance, they should test them in class. And if they want to test their ability to produce the best possible work, they shouldn’t limit the tools they are allowed to use.

 

Let’s also assume that, in the not-too-distant future, it won’t even be possible to detect AI-generated content. Will we still prohibit it, giving every writer an impossible choice between cheating and refusing to use a powerful new tool?   - (ANA) -

 

AB/ANA/04 September 2026 - - -