Perhaps you saw the recent report about a New York Times article that was found to have been produced substantially with generative artificial intelligence. The author of the column told The Atlantic that she “hadn’t copied and pasted language from an AI model into her work” but had used at least five different AI programs for things like “help[ing] her stay on topic in a paragraph.”
This kind of AI use is increasingly accepted. At CT, we disagree. Our house style guide, which contains policies shaping all our journalism, has long been clear on this point: We do not write with AI.
What does that mean, concretely? I’m emailing more detailed guidance to our writers, but here are some highlights:
- CT writers may use AI as a souped-up search engine, provided they are extremely careful about checking its sources. That means personally verifying texts and claims every time by clicking through to the source link or independently searching.
- CT writers may use AI to transcribe interviews, videos, or dictations of their own ideas. But they must read through the transcripts themselves and manually verify accuracy, make selections to quote, or edit for concision and clarity.
- CT writers may not use AI in any aspect of the planning and writing process, including but not limited to pitching, outlining, arguing, or phrasing. Helping with all this is exactly the purpose of (human!) editors. Writers should ask us, not Claude.
- CT writers may not use Grammarly or similar AI copyediting programs, including Copilot in Microsoft Word. We have wonderful copy editors at CT, and writers are also welcome to continue using long-standing, pre-AI features like spell-check.
- If a writer files an article that we believe violates our AI use policy, we can and will cancel the commission. We recognize that programs purporting to detect AI-generated language are fallible, and we will always assume the best of our writers. We ask them to trust us in the work of crafting strong writing without artificial input.
For more on writing and AI, read today’s essay from editor and writing professor Nadya Williams.
