A small industry has arisen claiming to detect AI in writing, accurate or not, as Mr. Gigot’s colleague James Taranto amusingly exposed.
For example, a Washington Post columnist told readers she uses AI as a “sounding board,” the equivalent of hashing out an idea with a colleague or source. Mr. Gigot suspects other writers do the same, even if they won’t admit it.
Many others use it to check their grammar, or perhaps to assist with editing. Are these hanging journalistic offenses?
Mr. Druckenmiller and the Bond Market
Nearly everyone, Mr. Gigot reminds his readers, these days uses an AI tool for research, albeit checking for hallucinations.
Shock and outrage! Why wouldn’t this “billionaire,” as many put it, not write every word himself?
The piece picked up by the financial press around the world also picked on its favorite subject: the press. Did Mr. Druckenmiller use AI to help write his op-ed?
The WSJ’s Opinion page has a rule: Everything Me. Gigot and his colleagues write must be “original work.” That means not letting AI draft a column or editorial. Our readers, continues Mr. Gigot, need to know that the Journal is not “subcontracting our ideas or prose to the amalgamation of a machine.”
When a legendary investor, someone who worked alongside Scott Bessent and Kevin Warsh, made the case against the U.S. Treasury trying to dictate bond prices, the WSJ’s Paul Gigot wrote that is should be news. Gigot then reminds readers that those at the Journal opinion pages also like to make news.
What matters is the ultimate argument the author makes and stands behind. In the case of Mr. Druckenmiller, his views on the bond market and U.S. fiscal incontinence are worth listening to. The press corps wants me to disavow Mr. Druckenmiller, though his views on financial markets have been formed by decades of experience.
Using Smart Tools
When Mr. Druckenmiller was asked by a reporter if he had used AI, he innocently said he had used a large language model, claiming he viewed it as a tool, much like a calculator to do math. After all, he added, he is not a professional writer.
Younger writers in particular need to learn how to write for themselves, or they should leave the business. Besides, half the fun of reading columnist Holman Jenkins is maneuvering through his idiosyncratic style.
What matters is the ultimate argument the author makes and stands behind. In the case of Mr. Druckenmiller, his views on the bond market and U.S. fiscal incontinence are worth listening to. The press corps wants me to disavow Mr. Druckenmiller, though his views on financial markets have been formed by decades of experience.
When asked, why not “disclose” any AI use? Gigot replies, “Disclose what?” Interrogate on how precisely an author used ChatGPT?
Gigot knows some publications claim to do this, but he suspects it’s more pro forma than systematic.
Will some writers be encouraged to send in AI slop? Will the WSJ be able to detect it then reject it?
Paul Gigot writes that it wouldn’t be honest for him to grandstand that the WSJ’s contributors never use a tool like AI. Mr. Druckenmiller’s sin against the media Pharisees was admitting its use.
But his contribution to the public debate was still valuable, and he’s welcome in our pages any time.
