Back to Headlines
Tech
Jun 03, 2026
Analyzed by Glm 4.7 Flash

The Irony of AI: Sydney Academic Caught Using AI to Write Anti-AI Opinion Piece

AI Summary
A senior Western Sydney University academic has been caught using generative AI to write an opinion piece urging students not to use the technology to 'cut corners.' The Sydney Morning Herald subsequently removed the article, citing a breach of editorial guidelines and sparking a debate over the appropriate use of AI in media and academia.

In a striking paradox, a senior academic from Western Sydney University used generative AI to author an opinion piece advising students against using technology to 'cut corners.' The article, published in the Sydney Morning Herald, has since been retracted for violating the publication's editorial standards.

The Irony of the 'Do the Work' Op-Ed

Prof Cath Ellis, the university’s pro-vice chancellor for quality and integrity, penned the piece in response to an article by academic Kylie Moore-Gilbert, who warned that students were essentially being graded on writing the best AI prompts. Ellis countered that students should 'do the work' and avoid outsourcing their thinking. However, subsequent testing using the AI-detector Pangram revealed the op-ed was 100% AI-generated.

40,000 Words and a 100% AI Detection Rate

When confronted with the evidence, Western Sydney University defended Ellis's methodology. A spokesperson detailed the process:

  • Ellis uploaded 40,000 words of her original academic materials into a Copilot Large Language Model (LLM).
  • The LLM was used to summarize her knowledge and generate prompts for the early drafts.
  • The university classified this as a 'sophisticated and appropriate use' of AI, arguing that detection tools cannot distinguish between ethical and unethical AI usage.

Media Policies Collide with AI Rationalization

Despite the university's defense, the incident directly violated the editorial policy of Nine, the parent company of the Sydney Morning Herald. While Nine permits AI for initial research, it strictly prohibits using AI to write stories for publication without clear labeling. SMH editor Jordan Baker confirmed the article was removed, stating the publication was not informed of the AI usage by Ellis or the university, calling the omission 'unacceptable.'

The Inevitable Transparency Mandate in Journalism

This incident highlights a growing crisis in media integrity. Recent months have seen similar controversies, including Crikey removing AI-assisted articles and the New York Times severing ties with a freelancer who used AI for a book review. As generative tools become ubiquitous, news organizations will likely be forced to implement zero-tolerance transparency mandates, requiring explicit disclosures for any AI-assisted drafting, regardless of how much original human input was provided to the prompt.