Editorial judgment should focus on prose quality, not AI detection methods
Source: https://www.facebook.com/americanspectator/. "Would the Whiff of AI Have Panicked Harold Ross? | The American Spectator | USA News and Politics." May 16, 2026. spectator.org
The Gist
The author argues that editors are making a mistake by using AI detection tools instead of simply reading and judging whether writing is good or bad. He believes the old way of editing - where editors like Harold Ross just read carefully and decided if something worked - was better than today's obsession with proving writers didn't use AI.
Conclusion
Editors should evaluate writing based on its intrinsic quality rather than relying on AI detection systems and procedural proxies
Premises
- For centuries, editors like Harold Ross and Maxwell Perkins successfully evaluated writing quality through direct reading and editorial judgment
- Current AI detection systems are unreliable, producing false positives and negatively affecting neurodivergent students and non-native English speakers
- The focus on AI detection has created an absurd arms race where writers deliberately introduce flaws to appear 'human'
- Good writing remains good regardless of whether AI was used in its creation, and bad writing remains bad
- Relying on procedural proxies (AI purity, institutional pedigree, platform size) rather than direct evaluation weakens editorial standards
- The real danger is not AI replacing editors, but editors abandoning their core responsibility of exercising literary judgment
Assumptions
- Editorial judgment based on reading and criticism is superior to automated detection systems
- The quality of writing can be objectively assessed independent of its method of creation
- Traditional editorial practices from figures like Harold Ross represent an ideal standard
- Current institutional responses to AI are driven more by fear than by rational assessment