[arthens]

> I don't think it's safe to assume so at all. Granted, I only know one journalist, and they've told me they only use LLMs in their work to gather further sources/references to check, everything else they still do "manually" with their own hands.

I'd argue that your example falls under "which may have used AI in the preparation", which was exactly my point. (I actually had using AI for research as an example, but English is not my first language and I couldn't get the sentence to sound correct and chatGPT suggested I drop it)

> The editorial team should know exactly the scope of their teams AI usage. The snark mostly comes from them not knowing if AI was used or not, and they be upfront about them not knowing it. Feels like they're missing integrity if they don't know such things.

I don't see this as a lack of integrity, but rather as a futile attempt at being transparent. Everyone else is in the same position, they are just not adding a disclaimer.

And that's nothing specific about journalists, this applies to all professions. At most you can say what your official policy states, but you have absolutely no way of knowing how your employees/coworkers are using AIs.

[philipwhiuk]

> chatGPT suggested I drop it

AI suggests you drop disclosing possible usage of AI.

If it was smart we'd say this was AI influencing the narrative ;)