Billionaire Stanley Druckenmiller Admits Using AI to Write Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

Wall Street Journal defends billionaire's use of AI to write op-ed

Stanley Druckenmiller submitted an AI-written op-ed that was published by the Wall Street Journal. (Brendan McDermid/Reuters) The Wall Street Journal said that billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller did not violate its policies by using artificial intelligence to write an op-ed published Monday that criticized Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's interventions in the U.S. bond market. Paul Gigot, the Journal's editorial page editor, said in a statement Tuesday that AI is a "fact of modern life" that people will use to assist their writing, research, grammar and editing. "The question for us is whether what we publish from contributors reflects an author's original argument, and if the author has the standing and credibility to make it," he said. "In Stan Druckenmiller's case, we have had a relationship with him for many years, and nobody can doubt that his op-ed is his genuine opinion." The Journal did not disclose to readers any use of AI in the op-ed when it was first published or add any after Druckenmiller confirmed he got technological help producing it. The Wall Street Journal's newsroom abides by a different set of standards from its editorial page, a company spokeswoman said. Druckenmiller is the former chairman and president of hedge fund Duquesne Capital. The Journal and other news outlets have referred to him as a "mentor" to Bessent. Accusations that Druckenmiller had used AI to write the column flared not long after its publication. Social media posts claimed it used wording that contained giveaway tics of AI-generated prose and shared results from passing the op-ed through AI detector apps. When NOTUS, a Washington-based news outlet, asked Druckenmiller whether he used AI to write the column, the billionaire responded that he did. "There's a reason I moved from an English major to being an economics major," he told the publication. "I'm not embarrassed by it ... I write everything using AI now for the same reason I use a calculator when I do math problems." Druckenmiller did not respond to a request for further comment from The Washington Post. A page on the Journal's website says that its newsroom uses generative AI in several ways: data-driven investigations, summarizing articles and translating stories into different languages. The Journal's parent company, News Corp, also has a content partnership with ChatGPT-maker OpenAI, and the Journal uses a Google AI product called Vertex AI. "In all instances, we adhere to our long-held values of accuracy, accountability, originality, quality, transparency and respect for intellectual property," the site says. "Work that includes AI inputs is reviewed by a journalist before publishing." The news industry has had to reckon with the rise of generative AI, which in recent years has been changing how people find information and how they write. News Corp is suing the AI search engine company Perplexity alleging copyright infringement. The Post has partnerships with OpenAI and Perplexity. The backlash to AI-generated writing has reached scientific journals, literary magazines, publishing houses and global music charts, where tastemakers and deciders are weighing the value of creativity that's entirely born from and executed by humans. Standards for how media organizations handle the use of AI internally are inconsistent between publications -- and sometimes, as the Journal incident demonstrates, within one publication. Opinion sections, which rely heavily on outside contributors who often are not professional writers, may face a greater burden of AI-written or enhanced submissions. The Druckenmiller disclosure reignited debate over whether a financial guru needs to publish words that he came up with himself. Tech investor Jason Calacanis wrote in a post on X that it is "unforgivable" that a public figure wrote an AI-generated piece without clear disclosure "in the first sentence" for readers. "If you can't be bothered to take the time to write your own opinion piece, that should tell you it's not worth publishing," he added. Joe Weisenthal, who co-hosts the popular Bloomberg podcast "Odd Lots," wrote on X that the quality of the writing is what's most important -- not whether it's AI-generated or not. "Prior to AI, there were plenty of high-profile people publishing op-eds under their own name that were entirely written by some underling, and I don't think there was much controversy over it," he said. "IMO, long-term the only sustainable question is: is the writing good or bad?" Alex Mahadevan, who runs the Poynter Institute's media literacy project, MediaWise, told The Post in an email that the Journal is right that AI is a part of life right now. "But using it to write an entire piece -- opinion or not -- in a major news outlet runs afoul of the norms and ethics of AI use now, as well," he said. At the very least, he said, the Journal should have disclosed the use of AI because audiences want to know whether they're looking at human writing or something "straight out of a chatbot." Mahadevan also took issue with the quality of the piece. "It's not great writing," he said. "So if the tool is really helping someone better express themselves through writing, it ain't working."

Billionaire investor says he used AI to write critique of former mentee Scott Bessent

Stanley Druckenmiller said he was 'proud of using it' as wider media grapples with parameters around AI use Stanley Druckenmiller, a billionaire investor, said he used artificial intelligence to pen his viral Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he sharply criticized the interference of Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, in the US bond market. Many news outlets, including the Guardian, covered the editorial, highlighting Druckenmiller's rebuke of his former mentee, Bessent. As the story circulated online, some readers questioned rhetorical choices that resembled AI-generated text. On Tuesday, Druckenmiller admitted to using the technology. "I'm not embarrassed by it," he told Notus. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page editor, Paul Gigot, defended Druckenmiller in a statement. "The question for us is whether what we publish from contributors reflects an author's original argument, and if the author has the standing and credibility to make it. In Stan Druckenmiller's case, we have had a relationship with him for many years, and nobody can doubt that his op-ed is his genuine opinion," Gigot said. He also called AI "a fact of modern life". Druckenmiller further defended the choice in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. "At 73 I'm kind of proud of using it," he said, also telling the paper: "These are my ideas and I've been speaking about them for over 15 years, as anyone who knows me knows. Would I prefer that I was a great writer? Yes, but that's not who I am." Druckenmiller, in his op-ed, opposed the US treasury doubling the size of its government debt buybacks. The controversy comes as the media industry continues to grapple with its parameters around AI use. A UC Berkeley math professor came under heat this month for using AI to edit an op-ed in the San Francisco Standard. Zvezdelina Stankova maintained the piece, which argued that test-blind college admissions has resulted in under-prepared students, was the result of "intensive human work". The Standard said, to their understanding, the piece reflected the "original analysis" of Stankova and her colleagues. In March, the New York Times cut ties with a freelance journalist, whose use of AI resulted in plagiarism from a Guardian book review. The Times added an editor's note to the journalist's book review, noting a violation of its standards.

Billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller admits he used AI to write WSJ op-ed bashing Bessent

Billionaire investor Stanley Druckenmiller admitted Tuesday that he used AI to pen a scathing Wall Street Journal op-ed bashing Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's debt buybacks. Druckenmiller - the founder of Duquesne Capital who has been described as a mentor to Bessent early in his hedge fund trading career - defended his undisclosed use of AI to write the piece, arguing that it was a no-brainer. In an interview with digital news outlet NOTUS, Druckenmiller said "of course I used AI" when writing the column, which generated online buzz about Bessent and Druckenmiller's relationship. "There's a reason I moved from an English major to being an economics major," said Druckenmiller, 73. "I'm not embarrassed by it ... I write everything using AI now for the same reason I use a calculator when I do math problems." NOTUS claimed it used Pangram, an AI detection tool, to scan Druckenmiller's op-ed and found that it had been written using AI after several social media posts made similar allegations. Paul Gigot, the Journal's editorial page editor, defended Druckenmiller's use of the new technology, saying what matters is the integrity of the content. "AI is a fact of modern life. People will use it to assist in their work and their writing, including with research, checking grammar, editing and more," Gigot told The Post in a statement. "The question for us is whether what we publish from contributors reflects an author's original argument, and if the author has the standing and credibility to make it," he added. "In Stan Druckenmiller's case, we have had a relationship with him for many years, and nobody can doubt that his op-ed is his genuine opinion." The Wall Street Journal did not immediately respond to The Post's inquiry about whether it was aware that Druckenmiller had used AI to write the piece before it was published. On its website, the Journal says it uses AI tools for several purposes, including translation and research, and that "Work that includes AI inputs is reviewed by a journalist before publishing." Druckenmiller used the same argument as the broadsheet, shrugging off his use of AI since the argument made in the opinion piece was his own. "I don't know why this is relevant," he said. "My name is on the piece. It's my message." Druckenmiller denied that "the whole thing" was written with AI and said he rejected several of the bot's suggestions while working on the piece. In his op-ed, Druckenmiller tore into Bessent's plan to "at least double" government buybacks - potentially passing the $4 billion mark - in an effort to ease soaring Treasury yields and lower borrowing costs for consumers. His article, titled "Let the Bond Speak," argued the Treasury Department should "do the only thing that durably lowers long-term yields: address the primary deficit. Reform entitlements gradually and honestly, through means testing, indexing changes, eligibility adjustments phased in over decades - so that the burden is shared across generations instead of dumped on the youngest." As other news outlets noted, Druckenmiller's op-ed included some phrases that bore similarities to telltale signs of chatbot usage, such as sentences with the pattern, "It's not this, it's that." Lines in the article included: "This wasn't liquidity management, it was price management;" "not a malfunction but the machine doing its job;" and "The bond market wasn't being a vigilante, as some would argue. It was being a pushover." The Journal's parent company, News Corp, also owns The Post.