Adrian Weckler, technology editor at the Irish Independent, says he uses AI tools daily but has never allowed one to write for him. His comments come as The Wall Street Journal defends publishing an AI-written op-ed from billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller, a decision that has sparked debate among writers about where the line should be drawn.
The discussion carries weight for working journalists and writers. If major publications publish AI-generated opinion pieces under human bylines, readers will start asking tougher questions about who actually wrote what. And if AI-detection tools work as claimed, writers may face new scrutiny over their workflows.
The rise of AI detection tools
Weckmann mentioned he has been trialing a new AI-detection tool called Pangram, which claims to be 99 percent effective at detecting whether something was written using AI tools such as Copilot or ChatGPT.
That level of accuracy remains unproven in real-world settings, but the product category itself is expanding quickly. Newsrooms, publishers, and corporate employers are all testing ways to verify whether text was human-authored.
For freelancers and staff writers, the implications are clear. The same AI tools that can speed up drafting and research are the tools that can land a writer in trouble if used without disclosure. As detection capabilities improve, the gap between policy and practice will narrow.
What the debate actually tells us
The Wall Street Journal defended its decision to run Druckenmiller's AI-written op-ed. How Weckle sees it, that's a bridge too far - even for professionals who use AI as a daily utility.
He said: "Journalists do use AI. I do, on a sometimes daily basis, but allow it write for me? Never."
His positioning is practical rather than purist's. He's not rejecting AI as a tool. He's drawing a professional boundary between use and delegation. That distinction matters for anyone working under a byline.
For writers, this is the real conversation. The question isn't whether to adopt AI, but which tasks are acceptable to hand over and which should remain personal. The journalist's default in that debate is that drafting is a skill worth protecting.
If you are a professional writer, that's exactly the conversation you want to be part of. Knowing how to make AI serve your work without it replacing your judgment is a kind of coverage for your career - whether you're working with editors, clients, or byline audiences. Structured training on this can help. Resources like AI Learning Path for Technical Writers and other writer-focused guides, such as AI for Writers, offer advice on how to use AI without losing voice or accountability - a balance that matters when detection tools are gaining ground.
Why this matters for writers
This debate is not about which AI tool is best at writing an essay. It's about the value of your professional judgment. If publishers and editors are making placement decisions based on whether text was human-generated, the pressure to disclose your process is only going to grow.
Takeaway for you: figure out where your personal line is now, before the market does. Know which parts of your work you would never hand to an AI, and be ready to explain that choice long before anyone asks.
Your membership also unlocks:
