Harvard professor Ricardo Hausmann, a professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the director of the Harvard Growth Lab, recently drew scrutiny for using AI to condense an opinion piece for the Financial Times. The article, titled "Trump is taxing the dark matter that pays America’s way," was published on August 13. An editor's note was subsequently added to the piece stating, "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 FT editorial code of conduct specifically prohibits the use of AI in the writing process." The FT has since launched an editorial review process to examine the piece in more detail.
The incident has sparked considerable online reaction. Bloomberg's Joe Weisenthal described the situation as "astonishing, both in its writing and its publication." Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan shared an image from Pangram, an AI detection software, which flagged 71% of the text as "AI-generated." A Harvard student and freelance writer, Alex Bronzini-Vender, called it "the worst AI slop I’ve seen in a major publication." The controversy arises not from the full generation of content, but from the use of AI for condensing or editing, raising questions about where the line should be drawn for AI assistance in publishing.
This case highlights the growing complexity for newsrooms in establishing and enforcing AI policies, especially regarding AI-assisted editing versus full AI generation. While AI tools for condensing and refining text can be genuinely useful for saving time and improving flow, the lack of clear disclosure norms complicates trust between authors, publications, and readers. The FT's explicit policy against AI in the writing process brings into focus the distinction between outright generation and AI-assisted processes like summarizing, prompting publications to update their guidelines to address the full spectrum of AI involvement.
