Reuters Institute: “From metadata to AI detectors, several organisations are aiming to provide evidence of whether a piece of content was AI-generated. It’s not an easy task. Accusations of AI use in writing can grow beyond mere social media grumbling and have real impacts for the humans whose work is brought into question. This is often caused by secondary issues brought about by AI use, such as hallucinated quotes or plagiarism concerns.  Another argument is that AI is a mediocre writer, with annoying tics like a predilection for the “rule of three” and repetitive constructions such as “It’s not X, it’s Y.” Beyond these issues, whether or not using GenAI for writing is acceptable or not is a thornier question and doesn’t fit neatly into existing journalistic ethical frameworks. Is using AI to generate text to be published under your byline wrong, even when it doesn’t break any other rules about the accuracy, originality, and quality of your writing?  Some journalists and writers are already using AI to organise their notes and to generate their drafts. What then dictates authorship? Is it doing the reporting? Is it editing the piece? And is anyone objecting to these practices? Many journalists publicly criticise colleagues who use generative AI to write. But audiences seem split on the issue. According to our latest report on GenAI, one third of our respondents in six countries said they are comfortable with AI being used to write the text of an article…”