About 10 — of 310 — contributions to The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the New York Times over the past month appear to have been written by AI models.

Humans are still writing the vast majority of guest columns published in the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, a Semafor analysis found — but large language models were creeping in well before a high-profile Journal op-ed provoked controversy this week.

Over the past month, 10 out of 310 guest submissions to the three publications were labeled as at least 80% “AI” by AI detector Pangram, suggesting AI is not yet making a meaningful dent in human contributions to the most prestigious publications.

Another 40 articles were partially AI-generated. Pangram uses custom AI models to analyze text and other content for AI and, according to a spokesperson, has a .01% false positive rate. If Pangram finds more than 80% of the text is AI generated, it is labeled as AI. In informal testing by Semafor, Pangram was very accurate in detecting AI-written text, though some complain of false positives.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    3·
    2 months ago

    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.