Harvard professor Ricardo Hausmann is facing criticism after an op-ed he wrote for the Financial Times was flagged as largely AI-generated. The former Venezuelan government minister's column, published Thursday, criticized President Trump's tariffs - and quickly drew scrutiny over its stilted prose.
The FT added a disclaimer to the top of the piece on the same day it ran. "It has come to our attention that AI was used to condense a longer draft of this column prior to submission to the FT and our own editorial involvement," the note reads. "The FT editorial code of conduct specifically prohibits the use of AI in the writing process."
Readers and academics cry foul
Social media users were quick to call out the column. "Gotta be the worst AI slop I've seen in a major publication," one X user wrote. Another shared a screenshot from AI detector Pangram showing that the 841-word piece was 71% AI-generated.
Michael Socolow of the University of Maine captured the frustration many in academia feel. "It's going to be very difficult this academic year trying to encourage students to write persuasively with creativity, individuality, and style… when a star Econ professor at Harvard Kennedy School publishes such easily ID'ed AI slop in the Financial Times," he bemoaned in a social media post.
Even those who admire Hausmann's work were taken aback. Bloomberg's Joe Weisenthal wrote on X that he had "learned a lot" from Hausmann and "enjoyed talking with him" in the past. "I find this astonishing, both in its writing and its publication," he added.
What the controversy says about writing standards
The incident lands at an awkward moment for the academic world. Many professors are already fighting back against students who lean on AI for assignments. A top Harvard Kennedy School figure using the same technology for published work erodes the argument - and the paywall around the piece only sharpened the criticism.
Hausmann, 70, did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
Why this matters for writers
For working writers, the takeaway is clear: AI can condense and polish, but the person whose name sits on the piece carries the blame. The FT's decision to publish a disclaimer - rather than pull the article - shows how quickly an op-ed can turn from commentary into a case study of its own process. Writers who use AI as a tool must disclose it, or risk the same public scramble Hau is now in. Those who skip it for final prose maintain the credibility that the headline writers, once regardless, will be measured against.
Your membership also unlocks:
