The question "did AI write this?" used to feel like a parlor trick. Now it is becoming a daily trust problem for editors, teachers, recruiters, publishers, and readers who are trying to decide what kind of human judgment sits behind a piece of text.
The Financial Times story captures a shift into the uncanny middle. AI writing is getting smoother, human writing is being AI-assisted, and simple detectors are struggling with the overlap. The result is not a clean divide between human and machine, but a messy spectrum of authorship.
Institutions will need better disclosure norms than yes-or-no labels. The more useful question is how AI was used: drafting, editing, research, translation, personalization, or full generation. Trust will come from provenance and editorial standards, not from pretending every sentence has a single origin.
Was this useful?
Help Pagish understand which AI stories are worth covering more deeply.
Tell Pagish if this story was useful.