Latin American column blasts media hypocrisy over hidden AI use

This column gets at a cultural tension that will shape how AGI is received: elites quietly use AI in their own work while publicly condemning others for doing the same. By highlighting the Financial Times case and the Maryland study showing heavy AI use in US opinion pages, the author is arguing that norms around disclosure and authorship are being applied selectively. That kind of perceived double standard can seriously erode trust in both media institutions and AI governance efforts.

For the race to AGI, legitimacy matters. If the public comes to believe that rules about AI use are only enforced against outsiders while famous columnists, academics and politicians quietly rely on AI drafting tools, attempts to set meaningful guardrails on more powerful systems will meet cynicism and resistance. Conversely, transparent norms about when and how AI is used in elite discourse could make it easier to build support for stricter limits in high‑risk domains like law, medicine or elections.

The piece also raises an uncomfortable question for AI builders: how should we think about authorship and responsibility when the most influential ideas in society are increasingly co‑written by models? The answer will influence everything from copyright fights to how we attribute blame when AI‑assisted arguments move markets or elections.