Sydney Morning Herald removes opinion piece after author’s use of AI to write article comes to light
The Sydney Morning Herald has removed an opinion article by Professor Cath Ellis of Western Sydney University after it was revealed she used generative AI to assist in writing it. The piece, a response to concerns raised by academic Kylie Moore-Gilbert about AI undermining academic integrity, argued that students should not use AI to 'cut corners' and must engage in genuine learning. Western Sydney University defended Ellis’s use of AI, stating she uploaded 40,000 words of her original work into a large language model to generate prompts and early drafts, calling it a 'sophisticated and appropriate' use of technology. Nine, the publisher of the Herald, permits assistive AI for research and idea generation but requires labeling when AI-generated content is published. The article did not disclose AI use. While all sources agree on these core facts, The Guardian adds that an AI detection tool flagged the article as 100% AI-generated and emphasizes the contradiction between the article’s message and its creation method, whereas ABC News Australia focuses more on institutional justification and context.
The Guardian provides a more complete and critical account by including the AI detection result and highlighting the rhetorical contradiction, while ABC News Australia offers a more neutral, institutionally oriented narrative. Both sources rely on similar sourcing but differ in emphasis and framing, with The Guardian employing more narrative framing and appeal to irony, and ABC News Australia using framing by emphasis on systemic adaptation and policy compliance.
- ✓ The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) removed an opinion piece written by Professor Cath Ellis, pro vice chancellor of quality and integrity at Western Sydney University.
- ✓ Ellis’s article was a response to an earlier piece by Kylie Moore-Gilbert, who criticized universities for allowing AI to compromise academic integrity.
- ✓ Ellis argued in her article that students should not use AI to 'cut corners' and should engage in genuine learning.
- ✓ It was revealed that Ellis used generative AI to assist in writing her opinion piece.
- ✓ Western Sydney University confirmed that Ellis used a Copilot Large Language Model, into which she uploaded 40,000 words of her original work, to generate summaries and prompts for early drafts.
- ✓ The university described this use of AI as 'sophisticated and appropriate'.
- ✓ Nine, the publisher of SMH, has editorial guidelines permitting assistive AI for research, idea generation, and summarization, but requiring clear labeling when AI-generated material is published.
- ✓ The use of assistive AI, according to Nine’s policy, does not require declaration.
Framing of the AI detection result
Reports that the article was analyzed by Pangram and returned as 100% AI-generated, a key factual detail that heightens the controversy.
Does not mention any AI detection test or result.
Tone and emphasis on irony
Highlights the contradiction between Ellis’s message (urging students not to cut corners with AI) and her method (using AI to write the article), framing it as hypocritical or ironic.
Focuses on institutional response and justification, presenting the AI use as part of a broader adaptation in higher education.
Editorial policy interpretation
Quotes the same policy but emphasizes the clause stating 'AI will not be used to write stories for publication', suggesting a potential breach.
Quotes the policy permissively, emphasizing that assistive AI use does not require declaration.
Use of direct quotes from the controversial article
Includes the specific line: 'Don’t cut corners. Don’t outsource your thinking...', which amplifies the perceived hypocrisy.
Quotes Ellis’s general argument about transformation in education but omits her direct appeal to students ('Don’t cut corners...').
The Guardian
Framing: The Guardian frames the event as a case of institutional hypocrisy and ethical contradiction, emphasizing the irony of an academic advocating against AI misuse while using AI to produce her own argument. The focus is on accountability and transparency.
Tone: critical and investigative
Narrative Framing: The Guardian opens with a direct contrast between Ellis’s advice to students and her own use of AI, creating immediate narrative tension. The phrase 'urging students to avoid using tech to cut corners' frames the story as ironic or hypocritical.
"A top Sydney academic used AI to write an opinion piece that urged students to 'do the work' and not cut corners by using such technology"
Cherry-Picking: The inclusion of the Pangram AI-detection result (100% AI-generated) serves as objective evidence to support the claim of AI authorship, reinforcing the credibility of the critique.
"when submitted to AI-detector service Pangram, came up as 100% AI-generated"
Framing by Emphasis: By quoting Ellis’s direct appeal—'Don’t cut corners. Don’t outsource your thinking'—The Guardian heightens the perceived contradiction between message and method.
"Don’t cut corners. Don’t outsource your thinking, however tempting that may be."
Framing by Emphasis: The Guardian emphasizes the editorial policy clause that 'AI will not be used to write stories for publication', suggesting a potential violation, whereas ABC News Australia focuses on the permissive aspects.
"AI will not be used to write stories for publication"
Editorializing: The term 'unacceptable' in the headline is a value judgment not attributed to any source, indicating editorializing.
"removing the 'unacceptable' piece"
ABC News Australia
Framing: ABC News Australia frames the event as part of an ongoing institutional adaptation to AI in higher education, emphasizing procedural compliance and expert justification. The focus is on context and policy rather than contradiction.
Tone: neutral and explanatory
Balanced Reporting: ABC News Australia begins with a neutral statement of fact, focusing on the removal of the article without immediate judgment, setting a more institutional and explanatory tone.
"The Sydney Morning Herald has taken down an opinion piece defending the use of artificial intelligence at universities, after it emerged its author used AI to write it."
Framing by Emphasis: The article emphasizes the university’s justification, quoting at length the claim that AI was used 'sophisticated and appropriate' way, lending legitimacy to Ellis’s actions.
"To write her opinion article, Prof. Ellis uploaded 40,000 words of her own original materials into a Copilot Large Language Model"
Comprehensive Sourcing: ABC News Australia includes context about the academic debate between Ellis and Moore-Gilbert, positioning the article as part of a broader discourse on AI in education.
"Sunday's column was a response to an earlier opinion piece by Macquarie University academic Kylie Moore-Gilbert"
Omission: The article omits the AI detection result and the direct quote about 'cutting corners', which downplays the irony and potential controversy.
Framing by Emphasis: ABC News Australia highlights the permissive aspects of Nine’s AI policy, particularly that 'assistive AI does not require declaration', which normalizes Ellis’s actions.
"The use of assistive AI does not require declaration"
The Guardian
The Guardian provides more contextual detail, including the outcome of an AI detection test (Pangram result), direct quotes from the controversial article, and a clearer articulation of the contradiction between the article’s message and its creation method. It also explicitly references the editorial policy breach ('AI will not be used to write stories for publication'), heightening the perceived irony.
ABC News Australia
ABC News Australia offers institutional context and background on the academic debate between Ellis and Moore-Gilbert, and includes the university’s justification for AI use. However, it omits key details such as the AI-detection result and the specific contradiction in messaging, which reduces its critical depth.
No related content
Sydney academic used AI to write SMH opinion piece urging students to avoid using tech to ‘cut corners’
Sydney Morning Herald takes down opinion piece about AI after author used AI to write it