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.

  • eurodyne@piefed.worldEnglish
    4·
    11 days ago

    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.