The Lie Behind “Did You Use AI?” — And Why Journalists Are Running Scared of the Wrong Question

Posted on by

(SeaPRwire) –   By: Oliver Hawthorne

Stanley Druckenmiller did not lose sleep over whether his op-ed was “his.” The billionaire investor used AI to draft a Wall Street Journal piece attacking Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s bond-market interventions. Pangram scored it 100 percent AI. Druckenmiller laughed. “I write everything using AI now for the same reason I use a calculator when I do math problems,” he said. Not embarrassed. Unashamed.

That is the wrong answer. Not because Druckenmiller is lying. Because he is asking the wrong question. Readers do not care whether a writer used AI. They care whether they were misled. The difference matters more than any detector can measure.

The Wall Street Journal was similarly unapologetic. Editorial page editor Paul Gigot called AI “a fact of modern life.” The next day he wrote: “Mr. Druckenmiller’s sin against the media pharisees was admitting its use.” Sin. Not shame. Admission. As if transparency were the transgression.

I have tracked AI-generated misinformation at NewsGuard. I built my own AI propaganda site for $105 to show The Wall Street Journal how easy it was. Today I run Newsreel, a media startup where we vet independent journalists before they publish. Even with that vetting, readers still want to know how much AI went into what they are reading. So I proposed a simple, self-reported label: the “Who Wrote This?” scale.

H5 Human: No AI was used at all. Spellcheck does not count.
H4 Assisted: AI helped with research, fact-check prompts, headline ideas, grammar fixes. It never rewrote a sentence. The prose is entirely the author’s.
H3 Polished: The author wrote the full draft. Then AI tightened sentences, condensed paragraphs, reordered sections.
H2 Co-written: The author and AI went back and forth. Some paragraphs started with the model, some with the author. The argument is the author’s. The author did a real edit.
H1 Ghostwritten: AI wrote the first full draft from the author’s notes, interviews, or reporting. The ideas are the author’s. Most of the sentences are not.
H0 AI Slop: AI wrote it from a prompt alone. Light edits at most. The ideas, structure, and voice are the model’s.

This is not my idea. The open-source AI Usage Scale proposes six very similar levels. The Datatech Times already prints an AI level next to every byline. Adoption is rare. It should not be.

Writers are running scared of an AI witch hunt. Some are scrubbing em dashes from their prose. In April, James Taranto compared Pangram to a “defamation machine” fueling false accusations. A self-reported scale could protect writers who use AI for research, editing, or brainstorming. Once you have disclosed how you wrote something, there is nothing left to expose.

Readers care less about a writer using AI than about being misled. Voters are not upset by a president using a speechwriter. Everyone knows great orators like Abraham Lincoln had help. The rich and famous have routinely hired ghostwriters, speechwriters, and PR staffers to craft language that goes out under their name.

But disclosure matters. The “Who Wrote This?” scale relies on self-reporting. Some writers will shade the truth. A label still gives readers an answer without running a piece through Pangram. And knowing detectors exist should keep most writers honest. After all, claiming a story you wrote is H4 and getting caught at H0 is a lot more embarrassing than just saying it was H1.

In 1845, a journalist accused Alexandre Dumas, author of “The Three Musketeers” and “The Count of Monte Cristo,” of running a “novel factory” staffed by hidden collaborators. Dumas sued and won. But the question at the heart of that fight never went away: Who wrote this? If we cannot stop people from asking it, we can start answering it honestly.

Oh, and this article, I hereby reveal, is H3 Polished: The author wrote the full draft, then AI rewrote parts of it (tightening sentences, condensing paragraphs, reordering sections).

Author bio: Oliver Hawthorne is a Principal Correspondent permanently stationed at an international technology review, covering the intersection of AI, media ethics, and journalistic accountability since 2021.