Top WSJ Editor Approves AI-Assisted Writing, Says AI is a “Fact of Modern Life” in Major Inflection Point for Media Industry

The Wall Street Journal is giving opinion authors the go-ahead to use AI in the writing process without requiring AI disclosures — a move by a top newspaper that feels like an inflection point for the media industry. On Monday, the billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller, a former hedge fund manager and founder of Duquesne Capital, published an article in the Wall Street Journal‘s Opinion section titled “Let the Bond Market Speak.” The piece, which railed against the leadership of US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, immediately drew attention due to Druckenmiller’s personal relationship with Bessent. But as the essay made the rounds, it also caught readers’ eyes for a completely different reason: many suspected it had been generated using AI. Before long, commenters were posting analyses from the AI detection software Pangram and calling out “it’s not X, but Y” language and other “Claude-isms,” as one commenter put it, littered throughout the piece. Though the WSJ didn’t include any kind of disclaimer denoting AI use, Druckenmiller came out quickly to confirm that he indeed used AI to help form his argument. “There’s a reason I moved from an English major to being an economics major,” Druckenmiller told NOTUS. “I’m not embarrassed by it… I write everything using AI now for the same reason I use a calculator when I do math problems.” Per NOTUS, he added that he doesn’t see why his AI use is “relevant,” given that the essay articulated his intended message. “My name is on the piece,” said the trader. “It’s my message.” More notable than Druckenmiller’s point-blank admission, however, was the WSJ‘s response cosigning Druckenmiller’s argument. In a statement to Semafor‘s Max Tani calling AI a “fact of modern life,” WSJ opinion editor Paul Gigot agreed that because the op-ed reflected the trader’s “genuine opinion,” it was alright to publish the article without AI disclosures. “People will use it to assist in their work and their writing, including with research, checking grammar, editing and more. The question for us 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,” said Gigot. “In Stan Druckenmiller’s case, we have had a relationship with him for many years, and nobody can doubt that his op-ed is his genuine opinion.” Though most news organizations — the WSJ included — have internal policies policing generative AI use by staff, the WSJ is the latest news outlet in recent months to publicly grapple with AI use by contributing writers. Just last week, the Financial Times retroactively issued a prominent correction to an opinion article contributed by Harvard professor Ricardo Hausmann denoting that Hausmann had failed to inform the paper that AI “was used to condense a longer draft of this column prior to submission to the FT and our own editorial involvement,” a use that the “FT editorial code of conduct specifically prohibits.” And back in May, Futurism reported that The New York Times had issued sweeping and restrictive new guidelines for contributors after a series of AI controversies, including a digital backlash to a “Modern Love” column some readers suspected of being “AI slop” and the publication of a largely AI-generated book review that turned out to be heavily plagiarized. “To be clear on AI: All writing and visuals that freelancers submit to The Times must be the product of human creativity and craft, and all submissions must consist solely of their original reporting, writing and other work,” the newspaper said in an email to freelancers. Whereas the NYT took a more restrictive path in the face of AI use by non-staff writers, the WSJ has drawn a very different line in the sand — and in the process, has given a thumbs-up on extensive AI use to other contributors to the paper’s competitive opinion section. As Tani remarked, it’s a “precedent-setting moment in news media.” “The editor of the second most important opinion page in the country greenlights the use of AI for drafting pieces,” Tani added, “no disclosure necessary.” As Axios pointed out, it’s not like a billionaire has never used a ghostwriter before, or tasked a staffer with drumming up a speech or written argument. But drafting, after all, is part of the process of forming a coherent written argument. As AI creeps steadily into opinion pages across the media industry, it’s worth questioning how much of a writer’s thought process was influenced, or even outsourced, to a chatbot while forming a given argument. Is AI only helping put pen to paper — or is it playing a more substantive role in shaping an opinion and pushing it further? And what does that mean in the case of a media titan like the WSJ, where the opinions in its pages can move markets and influence policy? Get ready to see more “Claude-isms” in the WSJ and beyond. More on AI and media: New York Times Issues Stern Warning to Its Freelance Writers About AI Use